I don't see how if the income tax is high or low affects whether or not the constituents support it. Are we to assume that as long as the taxes don't go up, constituents will support the legislator?
I second guessed myself here thinking B was too simple and since C was worded a bit more complex, it might be a better choice than B: no more choosing answers I do not fully understand
For C - isn't there an absence of evidence that the constituents oppose the bill to reduce corporate income tax, and there is the existence of evidence that they do not want high taxes, and the argument is confusing 'they do not want high taxes' for 'they support lowering the corporate income tax.' still having a hard time understanding how C is wrong
@NushHey! I thought the same thing and arrived at this conclusion:
C explains an absence of evidence fallacy
C says there is NO evidence to support the conclusion constituents would support the bill that lowers the corporate tax rate
Tempting, but there actually is evidence (albeit weak and unspecific).
If the constituents overwhelmingly (97%+) reject high taxes.. the results of this poll are definitely evidence (although weak and unspecific) of their support for a bill that exiled reject high taxers for corporations.
C goes too far because it says absence of evidence
Absence = no evidence at all (which is untrue there is some weak evidence of the citizens support of the bill to lower corporate taxes because they reject high taxes therefore would prob lean towards rejecting high taxes for corps.)
@JacquelineMoon I struggled with the exact same thing until I had to remind myself that you need to let go of all outside information and only rely on what the stimulus gives you.
Am I the only one who was skeptical about the author's choice to use public opinion on high taxes generally to support a more narrow application of reducing high taxes?
For instance, no one wants higher income taxes on their own personal income, and may therefore respond to the poll stating 'no' to higher taxes. However, the author seemed to misinterpret this generalized definition of 'taxes' in the poll and apply it to support his conclusion on the narrow scope of 'corporate income tax,' which we were not given insight on.
To me, it seemed like the flaw was between the subject shift from 'high taxes' to 'corporate income tax.' I picked the wrong answer choice, 'C,' for this reason.
Are we just to assume the author is correct to conflate these two things? I'm not seeing how this subject shift is permissible, when in other question types this would be a glaring assumption to bridge.
@danielleiebradley834 C is descriptively inaccurate. The stim does not discuss an absence of evidence in either the premise or the conclusion. As such, it cannot be one of two concepts that get confused, which is what C says.
If the stim said: "I held a town hall where my constituents could voice opposition to my corporate tax cuts bill and no one showed up. Therefore my constituents support this bill."
Then C would be the right answer.
You're absolutely right that the legislator is conflating two different opinions, but not that we should accept it, for that IS the flaw.
While B doesn't call this out in language we would use if having a normal conversation, it DOES address the flaw. It his both hyper-specific and generous towards the legislator's "confusion." For the legislator's argument to be valid, constituents would have had to understand the question on the poll to mean "do you favor high taxes for corporations" AND have the assumption granted that those holding this opinion think current corporate income tax IS high. Note, B still relies on this assumption. But, B opens up an opportunity for criticism by addressing the first assumption: that the question on the poll was understood by all constituents to mean "do you favor high taxes on corporate income."
@danielleiebradley834 I agree I saw the same issue. But I ended up thinking about it this way -- maybe the constituents are against higher taxes across the board, but when it comes to corporate taxes, they don't consider them high until they're like 99% lol. So they could almost always be against lowering corporate taxes.
I can't understand this at all. Just because somebody doesn't support a raise doesn't mean they support a cut. They might want it to stay the same. What does the amount of the tax have to do with it?
the constituents were polled on whether they support high taxes, NOT on whether they would support a certain bill. How is that NOT a lack of evidence of support for a bill?
I understand that the bill does one thing that it seems the constituents would support but we have no idea what else might be in this bill and maybe there are other things in it that would cause the constituents to vote against it, or not vote… Either way, not support the bill.
My take is that one can reasonably assume that if your constituents don't like high taxes, in theory they would support a bill that cut taxes. The important question then is whether or not the taxes in question (in this case, corporate taxes) are actually high.
I had a lot of trouble understanding why C is wrong but this is what I came up with: we can't make this claim because the legislator never even looked for evidence of opposition or support for the bill. Instead, they used polling data about the issue of taxation at large, which overwhelmingly pointed at opposition to high taxes. Therefore, our job is to expose why this data is not sufficient to indicate support for a bill as stated.
Ding, ding, ding! Exactly. There is no evidence that there is no evidence, but conflating disfavor of high taxes with support for lowering them (especially if it's unclear what their position on the specific tax is) would weaken the argument tremendously!
At some point, maybe 20 lessons back, I stopped the habit of blind reviewing. I was religious about it for a while, but I found I reached a level of diminishing returns. I began to doubt myself more than necessary and often ended up selecting the correct answer initially only to end up falling into self-doubt in the BR and changing it. Has anyone else had this experience?
From personal experience, there is a limit to the benefits of BR.
omg I thought I was the only one esp since everyone always talks about blind reviewing as a must. I only do blind review on the drills after I step away from the computer so I can look back at it with a fresh perspective.
74 comments
Gonna be honest, I giggled when I read this question.
Flaw question types being so important for the test and being horrible at them is killing me..
American politicians from both parties be like
"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"
I haven't seen a question where circular reasoning is the flaw yet. Curious what it would look like.
I don't see how if the income tax is high or low affects whether or not the constituents support it. Are we to assume that as long as the taxes don't go up, constituents will support the legislator?
my problem is i am second guessing myself way too much
@jrm98
Gotta wonder which is worse though.
Over confidence errors, or not enough confidence.
my brain literally turned off on this question
I second guessed myself here thinking B was too simple and since C was worded a bit more complex, it might be a better choice than B: no more choosing answers I do not fully understand
I am so scared to submit my answers
Spelling error in stimulus description. "assumptionrequired" lol
For C - isn't there an absence of evidence that the constituents oppose the bill to reduce corporate income tax, and there is the existence of evidence that they do not want high taxes, and the argument is confusing 'they do not want high taxes' for 'they support lowering the corporate income tax.' still having a hard time understanding how C is wrong
@NushHey! I thought the same thing and arrived at this conclusion:
C explains an absence of evidence fallacy
Tempting, but there actually is evidence (albeit weak and unspecific).
If the constituents overwhelmingly (97%+) reject high taxes.. the results of this poll are definitely evidence (although weak and unspecific) of their support for a bill that exiled reject high taxers for corporations.
C goes too far because it says absence of evidence
Absence = no evidence at all (which is untrue there is some weak evidence of the citizens support of the bill to lower corporate taxes because they reject high taxes therefore would prob lean towards rejecting high taxes for corps.)
@AndrewWiedenkeller thank you!
I keep second guessing myself ughhhh
[This comment was deleted.]
@JacquelineMoon I struggled with the exact same thing until I had to remind myself that you need to let go of all outside information and only rely on what the stimulus gives you.
Am I the only one who was skeptical about the author's choice to use public opinion on high taxes generally to support a more narrow application of reducing high taxes?
For instance, no one wants higher income taxes on their own personal income, and may therefore respond to the poll stating 'no' to higher taxes. However, the author seemed to misinterpret this generalized definition of 'taxes' in the poll and apply it to support his conclusion on the narrow scope of 'corporate income tax,' which we were not given insight on.
To me, it seemed like the flaw was between the subject shift from 'high taxes' to 'corporate income tax.' I picked the wrong answer choice, 'C,' for this reason.
Are we just to assume the author is correct to conflate these two things? I'm not seeing how this subject shift is permissible, when in other question types this would be a glaring assumption to bridge.
#help
I hadn't struggled with the curriculum until now-- flaw questions are the bane of my existence.
@danielleiebradley834 C is descriptively inaccurate. The stim does not discuss an absence of evidence in either the premise or the conclusion. As such, it cannot be one of two concepts that get confused, which is what C says.
If the stim said: "I held a town hall where my constituents could voice opposition to my corporate tax cuts bill and no one showed up. Therefore my constituents support this bill."
Then C would be the right answer.
You're absolutely right that the legislator is conflating two different opinions, but not that we should accept it, for that IS the flaw.
While B doesn't call this out in language we would use if having a normal conversation, it DOES address the flaw. It his both hyper-specific and generous towards the legislator's "confusion." For the legislator's argument to be valid, constituents would have had to understand the question on the poll to mean "do you favor high taxes for corporations" AND have the assumption granted that those holding this opinion think current corporate income tax IS high. Note, B still relies on this assumption. But, B opens up an opportunity for criticism by addressing the first assumption: that the question on the poll was understood by all constituents to mean "do you favor high taxes on corporate income."
@Rgschrader2 wait, I totally messed up the part about B lol, I was going from memory.
B opens the door to criticism on the second assumption first and foremost, but implicitly also the first.
@danielleiebradley834 I agree I saw the same issue. But I ended up thinking about it this way -- maybe the constituents are against higher taxes across the board, but when it comes to corporate taxes, they don't consider them high until they're like 99% lol. So they could almost always be against lowering corporate taxes.
I can't understand this at all. Just because somebody doesn't support a raise doesn't mean they support a cut. They might want it to stay the same. What does the amount of the tax have to do with it?
i thought the same thing... it seems almost irrelevant
I AGREE. Genuinely, help?
the constituents were polled on whether they support high taxes, NOT on whether they would support a certain bill. How is that NOT a lack of evidence of support for a bill?
I understand that the bill does one thing that it seems the constituents would support but we have no idea what else might be in this bill and maybe there are other things in it that would cause the constituents to vote against it, or not vote… Either way, not support the bill.
My take is that one can reasonably assume that if your constituents don't like high taxes, in theory they would support a bill that cut taxes. The important question then is whether or not the taxes in question (in this case, corporate taxes) are actually high.
Correct, in 33s! Definitely a new record for me. It's odd how some questions click immediately and others are indecipherable word salad.
damn i was on such a roll before this one! I was so confident in C that i didn't even blind review it, oops
Same! C is a very 'good' trap answer, because it seems like a more major flaw if we interpret it wrong. Which I did.
Wow! I actually hate these questions
oh hell yes finally
I had a lot of trouble understanding why C is wrong but this is what I came up with: we can't make this claim because the legislator never even looked for evidence of opposition or support for the bill. Instead, they used polling data about the issue of taxation at large, which overwhelmingly pointed at opposition to high taxes. Therefore, our job is to expose why this data is not sufficient to indicate support for a bill as stated.
Ding, ding, ding! Exactly. There is no evidence that there is no evidence, but conflating disfavor of high taxes with support for lowering them (especially if it's unclear what their position on the specific tax is) would weaken the argument tremendously!
At some point, maybe 20 lessons back, I stopped the habit of blind reviewing. I was religious about it for a while, but I found I reached a level of diminishing returns. I began to doubt myself more than necessary and often ended up selecting the correct answer initially only to end up falling into self-doubt in the BR and changing it. Has anyone else had this experience?
From personal experience, there is a limit to the benefits of BR.
omg I thought I was the only one esp since everyone always talks about blind reviewing as a must. I only do blind review on the drills after I step away from the computer so I can look back at it with a fresh perspective.
I chose C in Blind Review but chose B in the first go. Common L from me
"Oh, 97% are against high taxes. This means theyre supporting my CORPORATE income tax."
How many of that 97% fall under that corporate income tax? Probably few.
I quit
as a history & poli sci major i ate up the bit about the authoritarian regime