PT105.S4.Q14 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 4 · lr

The citizen argues that there needs to be a tax cut on upper-income citizens to counter the effects of unemployment. This is because this tax cut is needed to increase investment, which would create more jobs.

The argument identifies a tax cut as one possible way to create new jobs, but in claiming that the tax cut is needed, assumes that an increase in investment is the only way to create new jobs. Further, the premise stating that a tax cut would lead to an increase in investment is perhaps dubious, since the money gained from a tax cut could be spent in any number of ways.

The argument must assume that the tax cut would actually lead to an investment increase, and that an investment increase is the only way to counter unemployment.

The argument doesn’t need to assume anything about how this recession compares to other ones. It establishes that legislators need to counter unemployment, which is all that matters for the conclusion.

The argument only claims that this particular tax cut would increase investment. It doesn’t need to assume that tax cuts always have a corresponding increase in the likelihood of investment.

The argument is only concerned with what will occur in the future, so the investments that have been made up to this point are irrelevant.

If (D) were not true—if upper-income citizens would not use the money in this way—then the citizen’s plan would fail, since investment would not actually increase and jobs would therefore not necessarily be created.

The argument is only concerned with what will happen in the future, so whatever has occurred in the past is irrelevant.

PrepTest 105 - Section 4 - Question 14

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action