GMAT Exam  >  GMAT Questions  >  Many people complain that not enough citizens... Start Learning for Free
Many people complain that not enough citizens of the country vote. Voting, they point out, is a simple act and it gives people the opportunity to directly affect the government so there is no reason for people not to vote. But economists point out that voting does have costs: time spent at the polls and money spent on transportation. The economic benefits achieved by voting are so negligible that the cost is never worth it.
If the economists’ statements are true, than it must also be true that
  • a)
    Less than half of the country’s citizens vote in any given election.
  • b)
    Citizens are more likely to vote when the polling station is on their way to work or school.
  • c)
    Voting does not allow citizens to directly affect the government.
  • d)
    Citizens do not vote because they do not feel that their efforts will be rewarded.
  • e)
    If a citizen does vote, it must be because of some non-economic benefit.
Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
Most Upvoted Answer
Many people complain that not enough citizens of the country vote. Vot...
According to the economists’ argument, “the economic benefits achieved by voting are so negligible that the cost is never worth it.” If the economic benefit is never worth the cost, there must be some other reason people vote. Choice E states this.
The proportion of voters is not mentioned, so choice A is out of scope. Choice B may seem tempting, since this might lessen transportations costs, but it is not a necessary inference. Choice C is contradicted by the passage and choice and D is not necessarily true based on the information in the passage.
Attention GMAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed GMAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in GMAT.
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Similar GMAT Doubts

Article 1News article in an environmental publication.July 19 – If current trends continue, fossil fuels will be exhausted by 2052. Industry and transportation and the inability of governments to put stricter emissions regulations in place means that there will be a greater demand for alternative energy sources. Additionally, recent concerns about the high-cost of implementing new systems such as public transportation in industrialized areas has led many voters to actually strike down propositions to subsidize alternative fuel research.Article 2Interview with a well-known scientist.August 3 – Dr. Lisa Goodman, one of the team of architects behind several new battery-operated commercial vehicles, has criticized the government’s unwillingness to aggressively lobby voters to pass measures to reduce fossil fuel usage. She suggests that without a significant reduction in per-person fossil fuel consumption, the rate of global warming could soon increase threefold.“I know that voters continue to reject costly measures to reduce widespread fossil fuel consumption such as large-scale public transportation projects, and that politicians are naturally going to avoid stumping for unpopular policies. However, if something isn’t done soon, by 2055, a barrel of gasoline may become a luxury that only the rich can afford.”Article 3Article from a weekly news magazine.August 29 – The price of crude oil has jumped by 500% over the last decade as a decrease in supply has met with an increased demand. This demand has encouraged many new oil wells to launch in the Gulf of Mexico, and some American environmental groups have expressed concern that certain oil companies are not following the safest procedures, emphasizing that the companies are more concerned with the speed of extraction than the well-being of the ecosystem. Some scientists in the Gulf have called for an increase in safety regulations for oil companies drilling off the coast, but the companies warn that this may dramatically increase the cost of crude oil, at a time when many Americans are already struggling to pay the increased price.Consider each of the following statements. Does the information in the three articles support the inference as stated?Q.Politicians usually do not agree with one another on issues of global warming and fossil fuel consumption.

Article 1News article in an environmental publication.July 19 – If current trends continue, fossil fuels will be exhausted by 2052. Industry and transportation and the inability of governments to put stricter emissions regulations in place means that there will be a greater demand for alternative energy sources. Additionally, recent concerns about the high-cost of implementing new systems such as public transportation in industrialized areas has led many voters to actually strike down propositions to subsidize alternative fuel research.Article 2Interview with a well-known scientist.August 3 – Dr. Lisa Goodman, one of the team of architects behind several new battery-operated commercial vehicles, has criticized the government’s unwillingness to aggressively lobby voters to pass measures to reduce fossil fuel usage. She suggests that without a significant reduction in per-person fossil fuel consumption, the rate of global warming could soon increase threefold.“I know that voters continue to reject costly measures to reduce widespread fossil fuel consumption such as large-scale public transportation projects, and that politicians are naturally going to avoid stumping for unpopular policies. However, if something isn’t done soon, by 2055, a barrel of gasoline may become a luxury that only the rich can afford.”Article 3Article from a weekly news magazine.August 29 – The price of crude oil has jumped by 500% over the last decade as a decrease in supply has met with an increased demand. This demand has encouraged many new oil wells to launch in the Gulf of Mexico, and some American environmental groups have expressed concern that certain oil companies are not following the safest procedures, emphasizing that the companies are more concerned with the speed of extraction than the well-being of the ecosystem. Some scientists in the Gulf have called for an increase in safety regulations for oil companies drilling off the coast, but the companies warn that this may dramatically increase the cost of crude oil, at a time when many Americans are already struggling to pay the increased price.Consider each of the following statements. Does the information in the three articles support the inference as stated?Q.Dr. Goodman would likely support a public referendum on whether to require the oil companies to have better safety and ecological regulations.

Article 1News article in an environmental publication.July 19 – If current trends continue, fossil fuels will be exhausted by 2052. Industry and transportation and the inability of governments to put stricter emissions regulations in place means that there will be a greater demand for alternative energy sources. Additionally, recent concerns about the high-cost of implementing new systems such as public transportation in industrialized areas has led many voters to actually strike down propositions to subsidize alternative fuel research.Article 2Interview with a well-known scientist.August 3 – Dr. Lisa Goodman, one of the team of architects behind several new battery-operated commercial vehicles, has criticized the government’s unwillingness to aggressively lobby voters to pass measures to reduce fossil fuel usage. She suggests that without a significant reduction in per-person fossil fuel consumption, the rate of global warming could soon increase threefold.“I know that voters continue to reject costly measures to reduce widespread fossil fuel consumption such as large-scale public transportation projects, and that politicians are naturally going to avoid stumping for unpopular policies. However, if something isn’t done soon, by 2055, a barrel of gasoline may become a luxury that only the rich can afford.”Article 3Article from a weekly news magazine.August 29 – The price of crude oil has jumped by 500% over the last decade as a decrease in supply has met with an increased demand. This demand has encouraged many new oil wells to launch in the Gulf of Mexico, and some American environmental groups have expressed concern that certain oil companies are not following the safest procedures, emphasizing that the companies are more concerned with the speed of extraction than the well-being of the ecosystem. Some scientists in the Gulf have called for an increase in safety regulations for oil companies drilling off the coast, but the companies warn that this may dramatically increase the cost of crude oil, at a time when many Americans are already struggling to pay the increased price.Consider each of the following statements. Does the information in the three articles support the inference as stated?Q.An increase in worldwide demand for crude oil has made the oil companies safety standards fall.

Article 1News article in an environmental publication.July 19 – If current trends continue, fossil fuels will be exhausted by 2052. Industry and transportation and the inability of governments to put stricter emissions regulations in place means that there will be a greater demand for alternative energy sources. Additionally, recent concerns about the high-cost of implementing new systems such as public transportation in industrialized areas has led many voters to actually strike down propositions to subsidize alternative fuel research.Article 2Interview with a well-known scientist.August 3 – Dr. Lisa Goodman, one of the team of architects behind several new battery-operated commercial vehicles, has criticized the government’s unwillingness to aggressively lobby voters to pass measures to reduce fossil fuel usage. She suggests that without a significant reduction in per-person fossil fuel consumption, the rate of global warming could soon increase threefold.“I know that voters continue to reject costly measures to reduce widespread fossil fuel consumption such as large-scale public transportation projects, and that politicians are naturally going to avoid stumping for unpopular policies. However, if something isn’t done soon, by 2055, a barrel of gasoline may become a luxury that only the rich can afford.”Article 3Article from a weekly news magazine.August 29 – The price of crude oil has jumped by 500% over the last decade as a decrease in supply has met with an increased demand. This demand has encouraged many new oil wells to launch in the Gulf of Mexico, and some American environmental groups have expressed concern that certain oil companies are not following the safest procedures, emphasizing that the companies are more concerned with the speed of extraction than the well-being of the ecosystem. Some scientists in the Gulf have called for an increase in safety regulations for oil companies drilling off the coast, but the companies warn that this may dramatically increase the cost of crude oil, at a time when many Americans are already struggling to pay the increased price.Consider each of the following statement. Does the information in the three articles support the inference as stated?Q.The actions of the oil companies have led some voters to reject measuresthey consider costly.

Article 1News article in an environmental publication.July 19 – If current trends continue, fossil fuels will be exhausted by 2052. Industry and transportation and the inability of governments to put stricter emissions regulations in place means that there will be a greater demand for alternative energy sources. Additionally, recent concerns about the high-cost of implementing new systems such as public transportation in industrialized areas has led many voters to actually strike down propositions to subsidize alternative fuel research.Article 2Interview with a well-known scientist.August 3 – Dr. Lisa Goodman, one of the team of architects behind several new battery-operated commercial vehicles, has criticized the government’s unwillingness to aggressively lobby voters to pass measures to reduce fossil fuel usage. She suggests that without a significant reduction in per-person fossil fuel consumption, the rate of global warming could soon increase threefold.“I know that voters continue to reject costly measures to reduce widespread fossil fuel consumption such as large-scale public transportation projects, and that politicians are naturally going to avoid stumping for unpopular policies. However, if something isn’t done soon, by 2055, a barrel of gasoline may become a luxury that only the rich can afford.”Article 3Article from a weekly news magazine.August 29 – The price of crude oil has jumped by 500% over the last decade as a decrease in supply has met with an increased demand. This demand has encouraged many new oil wells to launch in the Gulf of Mexico, and some American environmental groups have expressed concern that certain oil companies are not following the safest procedures, emphasizing that the companies are more concerned with the speed of extraction than the well-being of the ecosystem. Some scientists in the Gulf have called for an increase in safety regulations for oil companies drilling off the coast, but the companies warn that this may dramatically increase the cost of crude oil, at a time when many Americans are already struggling to pay the increased price.Consider each of the following statement. Does the information in the three articles support the inference as stated?Q.An increase in demand for a product could incentivize companies to cut corners.

Top Courses for GMAT

Many people complain that not enough citizens of the country vote. Voting, they point out, is a simple act and it gives people the opportunity to directly affect the government so there is no reason for people not to vote. But economists point out that voting does have costs: time spent at the polls and money spent on transportation. The economic benefits achieved by voting are so negligible that the cost is never worth it.If the economists’ statements are true, than it must also be true thata)Less than half of the country’s citizens vote in any given election.b)Citizens are more likely to vote when the polling station is on their way to work or school.c)Voting does not allow citizens to directly affect the government.d)Citizens do not vote because they do not feel that their efforts will be rewarded.e)If a citizen does vote, it must be because of some non-economic benefit.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Many people complain that not enough citizens of the country vote. Voting, they point out, is a simple act and it gives people the opportunity to directly affect the government so there is no reason for people not to vote. But economists point out that voting does have costs: time spent at the polls and money spent on transportation. The economic benefits achieved by voting are so negligible that the cost is never worth it.If the economists’ statements are true, than it must also be true thata)Less than half of the country’s citizens vote in any given election.b)Citizens are more likely to vote when the polling station is on their way to work or school.c)Voting does not allow citizens to directly affect the government.d)Citizens do not vote because they do not feel that their efforts will be rewarded.e)If a citizen does vote, it must be because of some non-economic benefit.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Many people complain that not enough citizens of the country vote. Voting, they point out, is a simple act and it gives people the opportunity to directly affect the government so there is no reason for people not to vote. But economists point out that voting does have costs: time spent at the polls and money spent on transportation. The economic benefits achieved by voting are so negligible that the cost is never worth it.If the economists’ statements are true, than it must also be true thata)Less than half of the country’s citizens vote in any given election.b)Citizens are more likely to vote when the polling station is on their way to work or school.c)Voting does not allow citizens to directly affect the government.d)Citizens do not vote because they do not feel that their efforts will be rewarded.e)If a citizen does vote, it must be because of some non-economic benefit.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Many people complain that not enough citizens of the country vote. Voting, they point out, is a simple act and it gives people the opportunity to directly affect the government so there is no reason for people not to vote. But economists point out that voting does have costs: time spent at the polls and money spent on transportation. The economic benefits achieved by voting are so negligible that the cost is never worth it.If the economists’ statements are true, than it must also be true thata)Less than half of the country’s citizens vote in any given election.b)Citizens are more likely to vote when the polling station is on their way to work or school.c)Voting does not allow citizens to directly affect the government.d)Citizens do not vote because they do not feel that their efforts will be rewarded.e)If a citizen does vote, it must be because of some non-economic benefit.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Many people complain that not enough citizens of the country vote. Voting, they point out, is a simple act and it gives people the opportunity to directly affect the government so there is no reason for people not to vote. But economists point out that voting does have costs: time spent at the polls and money spent on transportation. The economic benefits achieved by voting are so negligible that the cost is never worth it.If the economists’ statements are true, than it must also be true thata)Less than half of the country’s citizens vote in any given election.b)Citizens are more likely to vote when the polling station is on their way to work or school.c)Voting does not allow citizens to directly affect the government.d)Citizens do not vote because they do not feel that their efforts will be rewarded.e)If a citizen does vote, it must be because of some non-economic benefit.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Many people complain that not enough citizens of the country vote. Voting, they point out, is a simple act and it gives people the opportunity to directly affect the government so there is no reason for people not to vote. But economists point out that voting does have costs: time spent at the polls and money spent on transportation. The economic benefits achieved by voting are so negligible that the cost is never worth it.If the economists’ statements are true, than it must also be true thata)Less than half of the country’s citizens vote in any given election.b)Citizens are more likely to vote when the polling station is on their way to work or school.c)Voting does not allow citizens to directly affect the government.d)Citizens do not vote because they do not feel that their efforts will be rewarded.e)If a citizen does vote, it must be because of some non-economic benefit.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Many people complain that not enough citizens of the country vote. Voting, they point out, is a simple act and it gives people the opportunity to directly affect the government so there is no reason for people not to vote. But economists point out that voting does have costs: time spent at the polls and money spent on transportation. The economic benefits achieved by voting are so negligible that the cost is never worth it.If the economists’ statements are true, than it must also be true thata)Less than half of the country’s citizens vote in any given election.b)Citizens are more likely to vote when the polling station is on their way to work or school.c)Voting does not allow citizens to directly affect the government.d)Citizens do not vote because they do not feel that their efforts will be rewarded.e)If a citizen does vote, it must be because of some non-economic benefit.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Many people complain that not enough citizens of the country vote. Voting, they point out, is a simple act and it gives people the opportunity to directly affect the government so there is no reason for people not to vote. But economists point out that voting does have costs: time spent at the polls and money spent on transportation. The economic benefits achieved by voting are so negligible that the cost is never worth it.If the economists’ statements are true, than it must also be true thata)Less than half of the country’s citizens vote in any given election.b)Citizens are more likely to vote when the polling station is on their way to work or school.c)Voting does not allow citizens to directly affect the government.d)Citizens do not vote because they do not feel that their efforts will be rewarded.e)If a citizen does vote, it must be because of some non-economic benefit.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Many people complain that not enough citizens of the country vote. Voting, they point out, is a simple act and it gives people the opportunity to directly affect the government so there is no reason for people not to vote. But economists point out that voting does have costs: time spent at the polls and money spent on transportation. The economic benefits achieved by voting are so negligible that the cost is never worth it.If the economists’ statements are true, than it must also be true thata)Less than half of the country’s citizens vote in any given election.b)Citizens are more likely to vote when the polling station is on their way to work or school.c)Voting does not allow citizens to directly affect the government.d)Citizens do not vote because they do not feel that their efforts will be rewarded.e)If a citizen does vote, it must be because of some non-economic benefit.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Many people complain that not enough citizens of the country vote. Voting, they point out, is a simple act and it gives people the opportunity to directly affect the government so there is no reason for people not to vote. But economists point out that voting does have costs: time spent at the polls and money spent on transportation. The economic benefits achieved by voting are so negligible that the cost is never worth it.If the economists’ statements are true, than it must also be true thata)Less than half of the country’s citizens vote in any given election.b)Citizens are more likely to vote when the polling station is on their way to work or school.c)Voting does not allow citizens to directly affect the government.d)Citizens do not vote because they do not feel that their efforts will be rewarded.e)If a citizen does vote, it must be because of some non-economic benefit.Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Top Courses for GMAT

Explore Courses
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev