Q. With Proposition 13, if you bought your house 11 years ago for $75,000, your property tax would be approximately $914 a year (1 percent of $75,000 increased by 2 percent each year for 11 years); and if your neighbor bought an identical house next door to you for $200,000 this year, his tax would be $2,000 (1 percent of $200,000). Without Proposition 13, both you and your neighbor would pay $6,000 a year in property taxes (3 percent of $200,000).
Which of the following is the conclusion for which the author most likely is arguing in the passage above?
A. Proposition 13 is unconstitutional because it imposes an unequal tax on properties of equal value.
B. If Proposition 13 is repealed, every homeowner is likely to experience a substantial increase in property taxes.
C. By preventing inflation from driving up property values, Proposition 13 has saved homeowners thousands of dollars in property taxes.
D. If Proposition 13 is not repealed, identical properties will continue to be taxed to different rates.
E. Proposition 13 has benefited some homeowners more than others.
B is the answer. It says that if proposiion 13 is repealed, every homeowner is likely to experience a substantial increase in property taxes. This is but obvious as the same is given in the stem.With the Proposition, the tax would be $2,000. And without the Proposition, the tax would be $6,000. This would hold good for any property since with Proposition 13 it would be 1% of property value of the first year and without Proposition 13, it would be 3% of the present property value. In this situation, paying 3% of the variable property price would definitely be more expensive than that from the scheme of Proposition 13. Thus, we can safely assume that the author most likely wants to make this conclusion. However, there is a catch! If the property depreciated substantially after the purchase, then the new homeowner will enjoy the benefit of the repeal and this statement would be false. But, we need to consider the intent of the author, who has used the word 'likely', which makes the statement necessarily true.
Hello sir. I have a doubt in my CR 4 module. Many of the questions which ask us to find the main idea have the conclusion of the paragraph as answers. Can answer to the main idea questions be the conclusion itself? I think that both of them are different question stems and cannot be overlapped.
Hello Samyak, the main idea or main point question stem is the same as the summary question stem. The answer to this must contain the conclusion. If an option mentions the major premise(s) as well as the conclusion, it will be preferred over an option that only mentions the conclusion. There is a definite overlap between the conclusion and the summary/main point/ main idea question stems.
Hi sir, I'm posting a question below. The first image contains the paragraph followed by the question in the second image. Please help me with it.
The paragraph starts by claiming that for a long time, there has been an aspect of power or mystery associated with dolphins. Two pieces of evidence have then been given to support the claim made, one about dolphins' mystical abilities and the other about their use in alternative medicine. The author dismisses these by calling them unscientific and 'outlandish'. The conclusion is written subsequently that the appreciation of dolphins does not need to depend on their having supernatural powers. The reason for this has been stated- the information provided by scientific research about dolphin cognition is more exciting than any myths could be.
Option 1 focuses on subsidiary points of the argument.
Option 2 also does not contain the conclusion.
Option 3 mentions only the major premise for the conclusion.
Option 4 is the answer. It contains the conclusion of the argument- there are many things we know about dolphins (through scientific research) that are beyond myths and can help us appreciate dolphins. It also acknowledges the sub-point about myths surrounding dolphins that has been made at the start of the paragraph.
Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations. This category, however, will not increase its share of total employment, whereas the category of high-paying service occupations will increase its share.
If the estimates above are accurate, which of the following conclusions can be drawn?
(A) In 1982 more people were working in low-paying service occupations than were working in high-paying service occupations.
(B) In 1995 more people will be working in high-paying service occupations than will be working in low-paying service occupations.
(C) Nonservice occupations will account for the same share of total employment in 1995 as in 1982.
(D) Many of the people who were working in low-paying service occupations in 1982 will be working in high-paying service occupations by 1995.
(E) The rate of growth for low-paying service occupations will be greater than the overall rate of employment growth between 1982 and 1995.
Sir why wouldn't the answer be 'C'?
Hi Richa, your previous question was of the strengthening type. I have answered it under the 'Strengthening and Weakening Statements' section of the forum.
I have created one model of the employment statistics as per the premises given in the argument i.e.:
1. Between 1982 and 1995 the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations (increase of 20 people)
2. Low-paying service occupations will not increase its share of total employment (remains 20%), whereas the category of high-paying service occupations will increase its share (from 10% to 12%).
As per this model, options B and E can be eliminated. D is a logical possibility, not a necessity.
Coming to option C, if the share of service occupations has changed in the period owing to an increase in the share of high- paying service occupations, it is not possible that non-service occupations account for the same share of employment (as depicted in the model as well). This is assuming there are only two categories of service occupations- low-paying and high-paying (as has been mentioned in the argument). The result may be different if there are more categories of service occupations for which the shares in the total employment also change.
Thank you Sir !!
A milepost on the towpath read “21” on the side facing the hiker as she approached it and “23” on its back. She reasoned that the next milepost forward on the path would indicate that she was halfway between one end of the path and the other. However, the milepost one mile further on read “20” facing her and “24” behind.
Which of the following, if true, would explain the discrepancy described above?
(A) The numbers on the next milepost had been reversed.
(B) The numbers on the mileposts indicate kilometers, not miles.
(C) The facing numbers indicate miles to the end of the path, not miles from the beginning.#
(D) A milepost was missing between the two the hiker encountered.
(E) The mileposts had originally been put in place for the use of mountain bikers, not for hikers.
Sir how should one approach such questions ?
First, this question is more in line with the CR questions you are likely to get on the GMAT. However, the process of reasoning involved is what you must be already familiar with:
You are walking along a path and you come across a milepost that reads 21 on one side (the side you are facing) and 23 on the other. This would most likely mean that the destination listed on the milepost (let's say you are headed to the same place, i.e. the end of the path) is 21 units away from where you are currently standing). This would also mean that you have covered 23 units from where you started (assume that the other side of the milepost indicates the distance to your starting point, i.e. the beginning of the path).
When you come to the next milepost, it would obviously read 20 on the side you are facing and 24 on the other side.
The sentence "You reasoned that the next milepost forward on the path would indicate that you were halfway between one end of the path and the other" indicates that you are a bit of a bird brain. You understood the facing numbers to indicate the distance you had covered.
Think about it.
Given alongside are a few facts. Based on these facts , select from among the given statements , the statement that can be concluded to be a fact.
1. Prof Gupta from the Delhi College of Arts and Sciences wrote two books, one in the area of sociology of science and the other in the area of work sociology.
2. Sociology of Sciences is published by a foreign publisher.
3. Books published by Indian publishers are less expensive.
Statements:
I. Sociology of Science is more expensive.
II. Sociology of Work is published by an Indian publisher.
III. Sociology of Work is priced high.
Statement II can be concluded.
Statement III can be concluded.
Statements I and II can be concluded.
Statements I and III can be concluded.
None of the statements can be concluded.
Sir I'm posting this here as i couldn't find the relevant topic head
Only 1 can be safely concluded.
Sir, please help me with this question. None of the answers seems to match.
options*
answer is 2nd?
The closest is Option 4. And yes, the options are indeed bad.
