Sonya: The government of Copeland is raising the cigarette t

[philip]

Sonya: The government of Copeland is raising the cigarette tax. Copeland’s cigarette prices will still be reasonably low, so cigarette consumption will probably not be affected much. Consequently, government revenue from the tax will increase.

Raoul: True, smoking is unlikely to decrease, because Copeland’s cigarette prices will still not be high. They will, however, no longer be the lowest in the region, so we might begin to see substantial illegal sales of smuggled cigarettes in Copeland.

Raoul responds to Sonya’s argument by doing which of the following?

A: Questioning the support for Sonya’s conclusion by distinguishing carefully between No change and no decrease

B: calling Sonya’s conclusion into question by pointing to a possible effect of a certain change.

C: Arguing that Sonya’s conclusion would be better supported if Sonya could cite a precedent for what she predicts will happen.

D: showing that a cause that Sonya claims will be producing a certain effect is not the only cause that could produce that effect

E: pointing out that a certain initiative is not bold enough to have the predicts it will have

Here I think in B, the "change" refers to the tax increase, while the "conclusion" refers to the prediction that government revenue will increase.

Yet in E, I believe the "initiative" refers to the tax increase as well, while the "predicts" (I'm also confused why it's used as a noun here) refers to the same thing that the "conclusion" in B does.

So, what's the real difference between B and E?

[RonPurewal]

wow, this looks like an lsat question.

there are definitely some words missing from choice e, which, presumably, is meant to say something along the lines of '...enough to have the effects she predicts it will have'.

the problem with choice e is the 'not bold enough' part. that's a big issue, because 'not bold enough' means that the initiative must be bolder: i.e., that the government should raise the cigarette tax even more than they propose to do. but that doesn't make any sense, because a bolder initiative would be much less likely to have the effects that sonya predicts. remember, sonya's prediction is that there will be NO effect; clearly, the bolder the initative, the less likely that is to be the case.

[philip]

Thank you very much Ron! I misunderstood 'not bold enough' as something like 'not effective enough'... Anyway, your explanation is very clear.

[rfernandez]

Nice work.

[NeilS178]

Hi Ron could you explain what is wrong with the Ans C here since I think Raoul is aiding Sonya in his reply by confirming with her.

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron could you explain what is wrong with the Ans C here since I think Raoul is aiding Sonya in his reply by confirming with her.

okay, so there are at least 3 serious issues here:
1/ you've misunderstood the passage;
2/ you've misunderstood what choice C says;
3/ choice C is wrong anyway.

1/
R is not 'confirming' S's conclusion. in fact, his point is basically that her prediction WILL NOT happen.
– she (S) thinks the government will get more money
– he (R) thinks people will start buying illegal cigarettes instead (in which case the government could possibly even get LESS money, since it would collect zero tax on smuggled cigarettes).

in fact, you already know this is going to happen, because R starts with 'True, blah blah blah'.
if someone starts a point with 'it's true that...', then that will always—ALWAYS—be followed up with '...BUT that doesn't mean what you think it does'.
ALWAYS.
this is not a 'memorize for the gmat' thing; this is just everyday conversation. go ahead and make up some conversations in which someone says something starting this way, and you'll see.

2/
choice C says that, according to R, S's argument is not good enough.
if he thinks that her argument WOULD BE BETTER SUPPORTED IF blah blah blah were true... then, right now, he thinks that it's NOT sufficiently well supported.

so, even if you thought that R was agreeing with S (he's not—see #1)... you still should have eliminated C.

3/
...and, C is wrong anyway.
'precedent' means 'an earlier situation that's like the current one, and thus from which we can draw conclusions about the current one'.
so, for choice C to be correct, R would have to say something like 'Hey S, you need to find some time in the past when the same sort of thing happened'.
he does no such thing.

[DeoleenaS237]

Hi Ron,
Can u please explain why can't "A" be the correct choice?

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,
Can u please explain why can't "A" be the correct choice?

...because that doesn't happen.

"no change" = will stay exactly the same
"no decrease" = might stay the same, or might increase

the only DIFFERENCE between these two is that "might increase" is part of one, but not the other.
therefore, "distinguishing carefully between 'no change' and 'no decrease' " would mean pointing to THIS difference. that doesn't happen.