The mayor's advisers are attempting to alter the widespread public belief that the mayor's restructuring of the city's taxation system is to blame for the poor business climate in the city. They say that the poor business climate is part of a national phenomenon and that the mayor is only blamed because of a coincidence in time: the business climate happened to get worse shortly following the tax restructuring.
Which of the following, if true, would cast the most serious doubt on the adviser's claim about the reason that the tax restructuring is blamed for the poor business climate?
There was a noticeable deterioration of the city's public transportation system immediately following the tax restructuring but the public drew no connection between the two events.
When the mayor was elected, by a sizeable majority, he had clearly enunciated his intention to restructure the city's taxation system.
Most economists agree that the effects of the tax restructuring on the city's business environment would not be immediately obvious, but would take at least a year to make themselves felt.
Despite the nationwide poor business environment, similar tax restructuring is being planned in cities of similar size throughout the country.
While the public generally objects to anything perceived to be likely to increase their taxes, they are just as quick to object to any reduction in the services supported by tax revenues.
OA : .A
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
KAPLAN CR
This topic has expert replies
-
sunnyjohn
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:40 am
- Thanked: 28 times
- Followed by:3 members
- GMAT Score:700
Very strange answers. I have not seen the kind of answers before. Though its a weakening question but I got to use POE on it. IMO: A, but honestly I am not satisfied with line of reasoning so I am not providing any explanation until you confirm the OA.czarczar wrote:The mayor's advisers are attempting to alter the widespread public belief that the mayor's restructuring of the city's taxation system is to blame for the poor business climate in the city. They say that the poor business climate is part of a national phenomenon and that the mayor is only blamed because of a coincidence in time: the business climate happened to get worse shortly following the tax restructuring.
Which of the following, if true, would cast the most serious doubt on the adviser's claim about the reason that the tax restructuring is blamed for the poor business climate?
There was a noticeable deterioration of the city's public transportation system immediately following the tax restructuring but the public drew no connection between the two events.
When the mayor was elected, by a sizeable majority, he had clearly enunciated his intention to restructure the city's taxation system.
Most economists agree that the effects of the tax restructuring on the city's business environment would not be immediately obvious, but would take at least a year to make themselves felt.
Despite the nationwide poor business environment, similar tax restructuring is being planned in cities of similar size throughout the country.
While the public generally objects to anything perceived to be likely to increase their taxes, they are just as quick to object to any reduction in the services supported by tax revenues.
OA : After discussion.
-
czarczar
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 9:39 am
- Thanked: 4 times
- Followed by:1 members
Anyways, I will edit the post with the OA so that others can have a fair chance too.
Yes, it's a weird question. God damn you have not seen RC'S in KAPLAN CATS. This question is nothing in front of them. heh
Yes, it's a weird question. God damn you have not seen RC'S in KAPLAN CATS. This question is nothing in front of them. heh
-
SticklorForDetails
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:39 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 39 times
- Followed by:22 members
- GMAT Score:780
It's a "weird" question but, to be honest, exactly the kind of thing you'll see at the higher difficulty levels on the actual GMAT. The most important thing about it is the question stem -- it's not as simple as "strengthen this" or "weaken that" but draws our attention to one particular aspect of the argument: the "reason that the tax restructuring is blamed..." The advisor argues that it is "only blamed because of a coincidence in time," and it is that "only because" that we are supposed to weaken by showing that a coincidence-in-time probably isn't the reason at all, as the correct answer does.
These kinds of questions, with stems that only apply to the given stimulus and draw our attention to a specific part of the Argument that may not be the main Conclusion, are very common among the challenging questions on the real GMAT. They are worth studying!
These kinds of questions, with stems that only apply to the given stimulus and draw our attention to a specific part of the Argument that may not be the main Conclusion, are very common among the challenging questions on the real GMAT. They are worth studying!
