Self-study
Editorialist: Some people propose that, to raise revenues and encourage conservation, our country's taxes on oil, gasoline, and coal should be increased. ████ █ ███ █████████ ████████ █████ ██ ████ ████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██████ ███ ███ ████████ █████ ████████ ███ ███████████████ ████ █████ ██████████ ████ ████████ █████ ██ ████████ ████████ ████ ██████ ██████████████ ██████ ████████ ██ ████████ ███ ██████ ███ ███████ ███ ███ ████████ █████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ██████████ █████
Summarize Argument
The editorialist concludes that the proposed tax increase would do more harm than good. This is because the tax increase would cause a number of economic problems for the country in question: decreasing international competitiveness, increasing household expenses, and reducing jobs.
Notable Assumptions
In order for the tax increase to do more harm than good, the economic problems the tax increase would cause must outweigh whatever benefits the tax would bring. The editorialist must therefore assume that these particular economic problems are of greater concern for the country than any environmental and/or economic upsides to the tax.
16.
Each of the following, if █████ █████ ██████ ███ ██████████████ ████████ ███████
a
The editorialist's country's ██████ ███████ ████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ████████████ ████ ██████████ ███ ████████
While the tax would be economically harmful in certain respects, it would also benefit the country’s economy. This weakens the editorialist’s argument that the tax shouldn’t be implemented for economic reasons.
b
Higher gasoline prices ████ ██ ████ ██ █ ███████ ████████████ ███████ ██████ ██ ████ ████████████ ████████
Despite the economic problems the tax might bring, the environmental benefits will be substantial. This adds a new benefit to the tax, weakening the claim that it will do more harm than good.
c
The proposed tax ████████ █████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ██████ ███████ ████ ███ ███████
The editorialist never specifies which energy source the tax will impact most. We don’t care about how the tax is distributed—we care about its overall effects. This doesn’t affect the argument either way.
d
Higher gasoline prices ████ █████████ ██████ ██ ████████ █████ ████ ██████ ██████████ ██████████████ ██████
This offers an overlooked benefit: transportation costs will be lower. By mitigating the economic burden on households, this weakens the editorialist's claims of economic harm.
e
The government would ███ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ████ ████ █████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████████ ███████
While the tax would harm jobs in one sector, others would benefit from the tax increase. This undermines the editorialist's concerns about job losses by showing us the bigger picture.