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

Redeem

Federal Income Tax

Expert replies
by vinay1983 » Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:59 pm
Hi there, seems that you have posted this in SC rather than in CR. I have flagged the post to be moved to CR.

This CR is on these lines.

Wealthy Individuals=======Donation====Tax deduction

New law/rule====no tax deduction on donation

Conclusion===Such institutions would be closed or be reduced in activity.

Here is what I feel it should have been

Option D has the strong word "only". we are not told about this

Option E Irrelevant

Option C Again Out of Scope

So I had it between A and B

Only reason I went for A, it gives a "balanced" idea as to what might happen to the donations from the wealthy individuals. See usage of many and some and NOT ALL. So it is safe.

Then I realized that B also has this strong word"only". It is confusing though, but are we told or is it safe to assume this?Strong words are to be taken with a pinch of salt, always!

Aside: Don't you think the federal government must have thought this over. If the donations to such institutions were through such wealthy people then by passing new tax laws, these institutions would definitely closed.No government would do such things!
You can, for example never foretell what any one man will do, but you can say with precision what an average number will be up to!
Join the discussion
Source: — Sentence Correction |

by ani781 » Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:38 am
Thanks Vinay.
I think the major determinant apart from extreme "only" is the imbalance that exists between 'some' and 'many'.
While 'some' orgs & institutions will get their doors closed, as stated in the argument(by completely running dry of money, as they might have been 100% patronized by these wealthy tax payers) ... B mentions for "many" the only source of funding was the tax payers' donations.

Thanks.
Join the discussion

• Page 1 of 1