Congress has passed a law that scales back the tax credits

[chitrangada.maitra]

SOurce: mgmat cat
Congress has passed a law that scales back the tax credits offered to purchasers of hybrid cars. Because of this, the number of hybrid cars sold each year, which has approximately doubled in each of the last five years, is likely to flatten in the next few years.

Which of the following statements, if true, most weakens the conclusion that the number of hybrid cars sold annually is likely to flatten in the next few years?

Most people buy hybrid cars for reasons other than to save money in the long run.

Recently published studies have shown that hybrid cars cost significantly more to repair and maintain than do comparable traditional cars.

Gasoline prices are projected to fall over the next few years.

Hybrid vehicles have a reputation for having less power than comparable non-hybrid vehicles.

Manufacturers have significantly increased their budgets for advertisements touting the fuel efficiency of hybrid cars.

OA: A

I cannot understand how B & C are ruled out.

If recent reports show that hybrids cost more to repair, doesnt it weaken the conclusion that 'withdrawal of tax rebait is causing the decline in sales' (alternate causation)

Similarly, fall in fuel prices can be a cause for not buying hybrids (alternate causation again)

[gokul_nair1984]

You are asked to find a reason why there would not be a decrease in sales even though the tax credits are being removed....

If gasoline prices increase, people might reduce buying such cars.

Similarly, if these cars cost more for repairs, people might refrain from purchasing them.


Only (A) provides substantial evidence that the number of cars sold will not decrease because people are not looking at saving money in the long run(but want to own the car for some other reason probably pride/ ego/as a status symbol ...we don't know..This is alternate causation)

[chitrangada.maitra]

Hi Gokul,

I see what you are saying

I went by the conclusion in the question stem: "Because of this, the number of hybrid cars sold each year, which has approximately doubled in each of the last five years, is likely to flatten in the next few years."

Option A weakens the conclusion by proving that 'drop in sales will not happen at all' where as option B attacks the cause for the drop in sales.

Option B
Cause: Hybrids cost more to repair
Effect: Drop in sales
(no relation to tax rebate withdrawal, hence conclusion is somewhat invalid)

Its attacking the conclusion by attacking the cause stated in the question stem

I guess I got confused because sometimes attacking the cause and providing an alternate cause also weakens the conclusion

Thanks,

[gokul_nair1984]

Hi Chitrangada,

Let me try to explain..

In strengthening/ weakening all you have to attack is the conclusion.
Thus here,we have to find something that proves that "The sales of hybrid cars will not drop....despite whatever reason(we are not bothered)

Option B
Cause: Hybrids cost more to repair
Effect: Drop in sales
(no relation to tax rebate withdrawal, hence conclusion is somewhat invalid)

You are absolutely right, but here we get a reason( whatever it may be...) that shows why a drop in sales might occur.This also has no relation to tax rebate.In my view this strengthens the conclusion slightly by:
1. Revoking Tax Rebates(already given fact due to which there might be a reduction in purchase).
2. More conspicuolsly, we have another reason here that the costs of maintenance and repairs are high. So this might all the more reduce the intention of people to own the car.

(C) on the other hand, states that the gasoline prices are bound to fall(Sorry, I mentioned increase in my previous post).
But does this affect our conclusion in any way, I guess not because we do not know whether the people who buy this car look for mileage efficiency. ( In other words, is mileage an important factor that influences their car buying decision. Who knows?)

I guess I got confused because sometimes attacking the cause and providing an alternate cause also weakens the conclusion

Just remember for strengthening/ weakening look only at the conclusion.As we see in this case, attacking the cause might not necessarily attack the conclusion.

Hope I could clarify this....

PS: When are you taking the GMAT and what are your practice scores like?

[chitrangada.maitra]

Got it, Thanks!

i looked at the both cause and effect as the conclusion ...

My test scores are strange - 640 in ALL the mgmat tests. I have not taken gmat prep yet.

The real deal is only two weeks from now.

You seem to have a firm grip on both Verbal and quant

[gokul_nair1984]

My test scores are strange - 640 in ALL the mgmat tests. I have not taken gmat prep yet.

Don't fret. I felt the quant on MGMAT is not at all representative of what you would actually see on the real test. The questions are too tough and too time consuming albeit, practicing them and acing them would mean an excellent performance on the quant section on the real stuff. The Verbal closely mimics the real stuff( although, the real SC's on the GMAT were much tougher compared with the ones on MGMAT- in my view!!).

I have a collection of some really good SC and Quant questions(700+). Drop me a mail at gokulnair1984(AT)gmail.com, if you would want to solve them before the real deal!!I cannot post them here as the sources are banned as per MGMAT.

Unlike Verbal, Quant has never been too much of a bother for me( Like it is for most Stereotyped Indian Engineers:)). I plan to take the GMAT again in 3-4 weeks, hopefully nailing the Verbal this time around.

Good Luck!!!

[tim]

:)