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.
Confused b/w A and D . Experts please help.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
cr
This topic has expert replies
-
jainrahul1985
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:08 am
- Thanked: 4 times
-
badpoem
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 11:06 pm
- Thanked: 4 times
- GMAT Score:710
Shouldn't the answer be E?
E clearly points to the fact that the austerity budgets were introduced in the previous governor's term in office and undermines the conclusion that the austere budgets during Governor Verdant's term have caused the slowdown in the growth in state spending.
E clearly points to the fact that the austerity budgets were introduced in the previous governor's term in office and undermines the conclusion that the austere budgets during Governor Verdant's term have caused the slowdown in the growth in state spending.
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Brent@GMATPrepNow
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 16207
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC
- Thanked: 5254 times
- Followed by:1268 members
- GMAT Score:770
The conclusion here is that Verdant's austere budgets caused the slowdown in the growth in state spending.jainrahul1985 wrote: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.
Confused b/w A and D . Experts please help.
To weaken causal arguments (X causes Y), we typically want to find evidence that shows:
(a) Y causes X
(b) Something else causes Y
(c) X and Y are coincidental
We should also watch out for other ways to weaken.
Here, the author is assuming that the numbers indicate a slowdown in spending. The numbers seem to suggest that.
However, answer choice A shows that, when you factor in inflation, spending has actually increased under Verdant. This kills the argument, so it is the correct answer.
Answer choice D does not hurt the argument that Verdant's austere budgets caused the slowdown in the growth in state spending.
Cheers,
Brent
Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
-
jainrahul1985
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:08 am
- Thanked: 4 times
I am still confused here . Option A says that inflation decreased so there was more money to spend during Verdant's term .
Now option D also says that revenues were generated by imposing taxes , so there was more money to spend during Verdant's term .
Where I am confused . Please suggest
Now option D also says that revenues were generated by imposing taxes , so there was more money to spend during Verdant's term .
Where I am confused . Please suggest
Brent@GMATPrepNow wrote:The conclusion here is that Verdant's austere budgets caused the slowdown in the growth in state spending.jainrahul1985 wrote: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.
Confused b/w A and D . Experts please help.
To weaken causal arguments (X causes Y), we typically want to find evidence that shows:
(a) Y causes X
(b) Something else causes Y
(c) X and Y are coincidental
We should also watch out for other ways to weaken.
Here, the author is assuming that the numbers indicate a slowdown in spending. The numbers seem to suggest that.
However, answer choice A shows that, when you factor in inflation, spending has actually increased under Verdant. This kills the argument, so it is the correct answer.
Answer choice D does not hurt the argument that Verdant's austere budgets caused the slowdown in the growth in state spending.
Cheers,
Brent
-
gmatclubmember
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:31 am
- Thanked: 29 times
- Followed by:2 members
I would like to go with E instead of A.
The inflation and spending rate by govt. can be tied together and can be shown as due to the low spending the inflation was low. and hence inflation is derived from the low spending by the govt.
E is a statement which sounds like the answer to me.
Cheers
Ami/-
The inflation and spending rate by govt. can be tied together and can be shown as due to the low spending the inflation was low. and hence inflation is derived from the low spending by the govt.
E is a statement which sounds like the answer to me.
Cheers
Ami/-
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Brent@GMATPrepNow
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 16207
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC
- Thanked: 5254 times
- Followed by:1268 members
- GMAT Score:770
Option A says that the real growth (when inflation is factored in) was greater during Verdant's term. So, this kills the author's argument that says there was a decrease.jainrahul1985 wrote:I am still confused here . Option A says that inflation decreased so there was more money to spend during Verdant's term .
Now option D also says that revenues were generated by imposing taxes , so there was more money to spend during Verdant's term .
Where I am confused . Please suggest
Option D may suggest that there was more money to spend, but if we look at the passage, it says that the budget under the previous Governor grew by 11.5% and only 6% under Verdant. So, the changes in revenue that are stated in option D are already factored into the 6%. Also, keep in mind that option D suggests a larger budget, but we don't know whether this mean 10 billion dollars more or 10 dollars more.
Option A: By noting the actual average inflation rates, we can see that the increase in $ spent by Verdant, and we can see that the growth under him was actually greater.
Cheers,
Brent
Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Brent@GMATPrepNow
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 16207
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC
- Thanked: 5254 times
- Followed by:1268 members
- GMAT Score:770
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.gmatclubmember wrote:I would like to go with E instead of A.
The inflation and spending rate by govt. can be tied together and can be shown as due to the low spending the inflation was low. and hence inflation is derived from the low spending by the govt.
E is a statement which sounds like the answer to me.
Cheers
Ami/-
Does this weaken the conclusion that Verdant's austere budgets caused the slowdown in the growth in state spending? No.
All it tells us is that the previous governor introduced some budgets with the word "austerity" in them. This doesn't affect whether or not there was a slowdown in the growth in state spending.
Cheers,
Brent
Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
-
sl750
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 496
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 5:34 am
- Thanked: 38 times
- Followed by:1 members
Brent,
Can't it be inferred in E that because these so called austerity budgets were introduced by the previous Governor, Governor Verdant's austerity budget was not responsible for the slowdown in spending?
Can't it be inferred in E that because these so called austerity budgets were introduced by the previous Governor, Governor Verdant's austerity budget was not responsible for the slowdown in spending?
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Brent@GMATPrepNow
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 16207
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC
- Thanked: 5254 times
- Followed by:1268 members
- GMAT Score:770
No, option E doesn't say that the austerity budgets adopted by previous measures are the same as those adopted by Verdant. It just says that both governors had austerity budgets.sl750 wrote:Brent,
Can't it be inferred in E that because these so called austerity budgets were introduced by the previous Governor, Governor Verdant's austerity budget was not responsible for the slowdown in spending?
Perhaps the austerity budgets of the previous governor had no effect on spending, but Verdant's austerity budget had a negative impact on the budget.
Cheers,
Brent
Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
-
pearl_rafter
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 12:01 pm
Also, D will be strengthener as oppose to weakener.
terminating some free program or charging for program is regarded as austerity measure
terminating some free program or charging for program is regarded as austerity measure
-
prateek_guy2004
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 398
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:39 pm
- Location: India
- Thanked: 41 times
- Followed by:6 members
Indeed A
Don't look for the incorrect things that you have done rather look for remedies....
https://www.beatthegmat.com/motivation-t90253.html
https://www.beatthegmat.com/motivation-t90253.html
