BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

[CR][Causal] HSPA posts

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1101
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:26 am
Thanked: 47 times
Followed by:13 members
GMAT Score:640

[CR][Causal] HSPA posts

by HSPA » Mon May 16, 2011 8:38 am
Kindly provide the approach on this causal question..

While Governor Verdant has been in office, the state's budget has increased by an average of 6 percent each year. While the previous governor was in office, the state's budget increased by an average of 11.5 percent each year. Obviously, the austere budgets during Governor Verdant's term have caused the slowdown in the growth in state spending.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?

(A) The rate of inflation in the state averaged 10 percent each year during the previous governor's term in office and 3 percent each year during Verdant's term.
(B) Both federal and state income tax rates have been lowered considerably during Verdant's term in office.
(C) In each year of Verdant's term in office, the state's budget has shown some increase in spending over the previous year.
(D) During Verdant's term in office, the state has either discontinued or begun to charge private citizens for numerous services that the state offered free to citizens during the previous governor's term.
(E) During the previous governor's term in office, the state introduced several so-called "austerity" budgets intended to reduce the growth in state spending.
First take: 640 (50M, 27V) - RC needs 300% improvement
Second take: coming soon..
Regards,
HSPA.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 11:29 am
Thanked: 7 times
Followed by:2 members

by Chaitanya_1986 » Mon May 16, 2011 8:58 am
While Governor Verdant has been in office, the state's budget has increased by an average of 6 percent each year. While the previous governor was in office, the state's budget increased by an average of 11.5 percent each year. Obviously, the austere budgets during Governor Verdant's term have caused the slowdown in the growth in state spending.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?

(A) The rate of inflation in the state averaged 10 percent each year during the previous governor's term in office and 3 percent each year during Verdant's term.
(B) Both federal and state income tax rates have been lowered considerably during Verdant's term in office.
(C) In each year of Verdant's term in office, the state's budget has shown some increase in spending over the previous year.
(D) During Verdant's term in office, the state has either discontinued or begun to charge private citizens for numerous services that the state offered free to citizens during the previous governor's term.
(E) During the previous governor's term in office, the state introduced several so-called "austerity" budgets intended to reduce the growth in state spending.

Causual Effect:-
Budgests of Verfants term---->>>> Slowed down the state growth in spending

We can weaken this by providing an alternate cause or No cause Effect is there or Cause is there but no effect exists etc....

A, B talks about inflation and taxes...Those are wrong....

C is Effect of an Effect.....i.e talking about effect...So its a Junk answer

E is also wrong...

The Answer is D because More revenue and less increase in budget....

What is OA???
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:15 am
Thanked: 85 times
Followed by:3 members

by clock60 » Mon May 16, 2011 10:48 am
hi HSPA, i only recently started to struggle with CR problems, and my reasoning is in danger of sounding silly, so any rejections are highly appreciated
to me the answer is B
passage says that with Governor Vedant state saw slowdown in spending, and this fact was attributed to the harsh verdant`budget
we need to weaken the reasoning, saying that the reason in low spending is not harsh budget but some other case that critics fais to mention.
answer B show this reason
if both federal and state income taxes were lowered, then perhaps state can see slowing in spending, but not perhaps of budget but simply they have no enough money to spend,
at first i also think about A, but A simply destroys conclusion,that is not our aim
it will be great to know oa-!
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:01 pm
Thanked: 21 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:720

by sourabh33 » Mon May 16, 2011 7:10 pm
IMO A
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1101
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:26 am
Thanked: 47 times
Followed by:13 members
GMAT Score:640

by HSPA » Mon May 16, 2011 7:17 pm
yes Sourav,
OA is A kindly lay down your approach.
First take: 640 (50M, 27V) - RC needs 300% improvement
Second take: coming soon..
Regards,
HSPA.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:01 pm
Thanked: 21 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:720

by sourabh33 » Mon May 16, 2011 7:27 pm
Conclusion : The reduced rate of growth in spending is caused by V's austere budgets

A. Definitely a weakener

During P's term Inflation was 10% --> Growth Rate 11.5% --> Effective growth rate --> 11.5-10=1.5%
During V's term Inflation was 3% --> Growth Rate 6% --> Effective growth rate --> 6-3=3%

Now if we can prove that the rate of growth actually did not reduce, we can also conclude V's austere budgets did not reduce the growth rate

B. May not impact the conclusion

Suppose that the tax was reduced by 10%. This could mean that the state income from the tax stream reduced by 10%. Now this may not impact on the overall spending figures as govt could have multiple revenue streams like Sales tax, vat, grants, debt, etc.

C. This again has no impact on the conclusion

we can assume that V was in power for 2 terms, and during these terms the respective rate of growths were 9% and 3%. Though there could be a variance in individual year the average growth rate is still lower than the rate of growth during P's term

D. Like B, this may not impact the conclusion.

Starting or stopping certain charges can impact the revenue from a particular stream, but the overall spending depends multiple revenue streams like Sales tax, vat, grants, debt, etc.

E. Interesting but could be discarded on the relative levels of austerity between both P's and V's budgets
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1101
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:26 am
Thanked: 47 times
Followed by:13 members
GMAT Score:640

by HSPA » Tue May 17, 2011 6:14 pm
Thanks Sourabh,

I am a diehard powerscore fan.. I am catogarizing this question type under the "statistical problem type -powerscore technique to identify errors"..
First take: 640 (50M, 27V) - RC needs 300% improvement
Second take: coming soon..
Regards,
HSPA.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:42 am
Location: Mumbai
Thanked: 14 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:710

by ankurmit » Tue May 17, 2011 11:38 pm
sourabh33 wrote:Conclusion : The reduced rate of growth in spending is caused by V's austere budgets

A. Definitely a weakener

During P's term Inflation was 10% --> Growth Rate 11.5% --> Effective growth rate --> 11.5-10=1.5%
During V's term Inflation was 3% --> Growth Rate 6% --> Effective growth rate --> 6-3=3%

Now if we can prove that the rate of growth actually did not reduce, we can also conclude V's austere budgets did not reduce the growth rate

B. May not impact the conclusion

Suppose that the tax was reduced by 10%. This could mean that the state income from the tax stream reduced by 10%. Now this may not impact on the overall spending figures as govt could have multiple revenue streams like Sales tax, vat, grants, debt, etc.

C. This again has no impact on the conclusion

we can assume that V was in power for 2 terms, and during these terms the respective rate of growths were 9% and 3%. Though there could be a variance in individual year the average growth rate is still lower than the rate of growth during P's term

D. Like B, this may not impact the conclusion.

Starting or stopping certain charges can impact the revenue from a particular stream, but the overall spending depends multiple revenue streams like Sales tax, vat, grants, debt, etc.

E. Interesting but could be discarded on the relative levels of austerity between both P's and V's budgets
I was confused between A and E but at last selected E.

can you please explain whats wrong with E ?
--------
Ankur mittal
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:01 pm
Thanked: 21 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:720

by sourabh33 » Wed May 18, 2011 12:04 am
Option E Says --> During the previous governor's term in office, the state introduced several so-called "austerity" budgets intended to reduce the growth in state spending.

This could imply that previous governor's budgets were aimed at reducing the growth rate, however, it does not affect the actions of the present governor's aim of reducing the present growth rates. Consider this for example, Yashwant Sinha's budget called for reduced health and military spending and was successful in bringing down the growth rate from 22% to 11.5%;Versus, the Pranab Mukherjee's budgets in addition to cuts in health and military, have called for cuts in education and infrastructure, thereby bringing down the growth to even lower rate of 3%.

Here, the austerity in the previous governor's budget does not directly affect the results of present governor's budget.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:42 am
Location: Mumbai
Thanked: 14 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:710

by ankurmit » Wed May 18, 2011 6:13 am
You are right.Thanks
--------
Ankur mittal
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1