Self-study
Tax reformer: Support The proposed tax reform legislation is being criticized by political groups on the right for being too specific and by political groups on the left for being too vague. █████ ███ ███ ███ ████ █████████ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ████████ ███ ███ ██████ ███ ██████████ ████ ██ ██ ████ ████ ███ ███████████ ██ ██████ ████ ██ ██ ██████ ███
Summary
The legislation isn’t too specific nor too vague, because it has received both critiques but one statement cannot be both.
Notable Assumptions
We are supposed to grant premises as true, and so we are allowed to believe that one statement cannot be both too specific and too vague. However, the conclusion leaps to the legislation as a whole, even though the support is only about a singular statement. If the legislation is made up of many statements, some of which are too vague and some of which are too specific, then the argument would fail. We need to know that this is not happening.
18.
Which one of the following ██ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ████████
a
It is rare ███ █████████ ██████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ██ ███ ████ ██ █████████ █ ██████████ ███ ██████ █████████
We are not discussing how uncommon this situation is.
b
Even an overly ████████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ████████ ███ ██ ███████████ ██ █ ███ ████ ████████ ██████████ ████████
The author is not placing value judgment on legislation that is deemed overly specific or vague. The author is arguing that this legislation is not overly specific or vague.
c
The proposed legislation ███ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ████ ███ ████████ ██████ ████ ███ █████████ █████ ██ ███ █████████ █████
The negation of (C) does not wreck the argument. If the legislation has been criticized by a third party, we have no idea what they said about it. And, regardless of what they said about it, it wouldn’t affect the argument.
d
The proposed legislation ██ ██ ██ ██████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ███████ ██████ █████████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ██████ ██ ███ █████
If negated, the legislation was meant to satisfy one or both of these groups. The legislation may have failed in that respect, but it doesn’t address the author’s support, “one and the same statement...” We need to find something necessary in the connection between support and conclusion.
e
The proposed legislation ██ ███ ████ ██ ██ █ ███ ██ ██████████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ████████ ███ ████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ██████
This must be true. If (E) is not true, then there’s an explanation for how a legislation could be both overly vague and overly specific. The author’s claim that a single statement cannot be both of those things would be severed from the conclusion.