Senator Strongwood_LSAT.

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:38 pm
Thanked: 127 times
Followed by:14 members

Senator Strongwood_LSAT.

by gmat_perfect » Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:09 am
Senator Strongwood reported that, contrary to a study cited by the administration, a thorough study by his own party concluded that a reduction in the capital gains tax would lead to an increase in the federal deficit. "Hooray for common sense," he said. "Everyone knows that when you cut taxes you lose revenue." He concluded that the administration's plan for reducing the capital gains tax was now dead, because he could not imagine any senator voting to increase the deficit.

Which one of the following accurately describes something Senator Strongwood does in advancing his argument?

(A) He implies that increasing the capital gains tax would decrease the federal deficit.
(B) He assumes senators will believe his party's report instead of the administration's.
(C) He resorts to name-calling by expressly stating that his opponents lack common sense.
(D) He assumes that senators will rarely vote for unpopular legislation.
(E) He assumes that a study commissioned by his party must be more objective than one commissioned by the administration.

OA: Later
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Thanked: 37 times
GMAT Score:700

by sk818020 » Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:08 pm
IMO B.

Not (A) because the passage does the opposite. It implies that reducing the capital gains tax will increase the deficit.
Not (C) because the passage does not expressly state that his opponents lack common sense. This may be indirectly advanced, but not expressly.
Not (D) because the passage does not tell us anything about unpopular legislation.
Not (E) because the passage does not tell us anything about the objectivity of either position.

B is true because of the statement, "because he could not imagine any senator voting to increase the deficit." If senators are voting to increase the deficit, then based on the argument they must believe Strongwoods study which says that increasing the capital gains tax leads to an increase the federal deficit.

What is the OA?

Thanks,

Jared
Last edited by sk818020 on Mon Jun 14, 2010 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 535
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:12 am
Thanked: 87 times
Followed by:5 members
GMAT Score:730

by hardik.jadeja » Mon Jun 14, 2010 3:02 pm
Agree to the reasoning given above.. IMO B.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 318
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:55 am
Thanked: 12 times

by nikhilkatira » Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:11 am
gmat_perfect wrote:Senator Strongwood reported that, contrary to a study cited by the administration, a thorough study by his own party concluded that a reduction in the capital gains tax would lead to an increase in the federal deficit. "Hooray for common sense," he said. "Everyone knows that when you cut taxes you lose revenue." He concluded that the administration's plan for reducing the capital gains tax was now dead, because he could not imagine any senator voting to increase the deficit.

Which one of the following accurately describes something Senator Strongwood does in advancing his argument?

(A) He implies that increasing the capital gains tax would decrease the federal deficit.
(B) He assumes senators will believe his party's report instead of the administration's.
(C) He resorts to name-calling by expressly stating that his opponents lack common sense.
(D) He assumes that senators will rarely vote for unpopular legislation.
(E) He assumes that a study commissioned by his party must be more objective than one commissioned by the administration.

OA: Later
IMO B.

OA pls.
Best,
Nikhil H. Katira

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 5:38 am
Thanked: 10 times

by Shawshank » Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:11 am
IMO --B
No Doubts
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Shawshank Redemtion -- Hope is still alive ...