PT10.S1.Q19 -Hey, could someone help? Been waiting two days for a response.

Ashley2018-1

Why does C weaken the argument if the low-income individuals aren't taxpayers? Isn't the city councilor's proposal to raise bus fares only meant to help taxpayers?

Edit: Answer choice C says "all" councilors believe that low-income people should be able to take advantage of buses. Since it says "all" of them believe that, does that mean the portion of councilors who think city taxes should be used to primarily benefit taxpayers believe that as well? Is that why C weakens?

And I thought the argument made sense at first because it looked as if it would force commuters, or non-taxpayers, to pay their fare share instead of having them continue to rely on the tax-payer funded bus fares, but the more I read it, the less the city councilor's proposal makes sense. How would raising bus fares for everyone in the city help taxpayers? Wouldn't that mean taxpayers would end up having to pay more? Was the city councillor who proposed this measure thinking that only commuters, or non-taxpayers, would have to pay for the increase in bus fares?

Granger Danger

Hey, I'll take a stab at this. I think this is a tough question and good on you for continuing to work at this question until you understand it!

This is how I understand the stimulus:

The city-run buses in Greenville are subsidized by tax revenues. Some people outside of Greenville also use these buses but don't pay taxes in Greenville. Some city councillors don't like this. The city councillors argue that the buses should be used primarily by Greenville residents. So the bus fares should be raised because the Greenville buses are not being used primarily by Greenville residents.

Here's my reasoning for the ACs:

A. This weakens. If many businesses will leave if the bus fares increase, this sounds pretty bad to me. I would think that the city councillors don't want businesses to leave the area.

B. If increasing the bus fare means that more people will drive and create air pollution and more money will be needed to clean the streets, this also sounds like a bad consequence of the raised bus fares!

C. This answer brings in a new situation. Break it apart. I reads backwards to me, so I'm going to flip it. If all city counselors agree that low income residents exempt from city taxes should be able to take advantage of of city-run services (the bus service), then increasing the bus fares would disadvantage those residents. This seems like another bad consequence to me. If low-income and city-tax exempt residents can't use or are less likely the bus service that the city counselors want Greenville residents to primarily use, then the weakens that the city counselors should raise the bus fare.

D. Careful here! I didn't realize that increasing local taxes has NOTHING to do with raising bus fares. My bad. This answer does not affect the argument.

E. If everyone in Greenville who earns wages above the nationally mandated minimum pays the city wage tax, then raising the bus fare would not benefit Greenville residents who pay taxes.

Does this make sense? Ask more questions if you need help.

Ashley2018-1

@"Granger Danger" said:
Hey, I'll take a stab at this. I think this is a tough question and good on you for continuing to work at this question until you understand it!

This is how I understand the stimulus:

The city-run buses in Greenville are subsidized by tax revenues. Some people outside of Greenville also use these buses but don't pay taxes in Greenville. Some city councillors don't like this. The city councillors argue that the buses should be used primarily by Greenville residents. So the bus fares should be raised because the Greenville buses are not being used primarily by Greenville residents.

Here's my reasoning for the ACs:

A. This weakens. If many businesses will leave if the bus fares increase, this sounds pretty bad to me. I would think that the city councillors don't want businesses to leave the area.

B. If increasing the bus fare means that more people will drive and create air pollution and more money will be needed to clean the streets, this also sounds like a bad consequence of the raised bus fares!

C. This answer brings in a new situation. Break it apart. I reads backwards to me, so I'm going to flip it. If all city counselors agree that low income residents exempt from city taxes should be able to take advantage of of city-run services (the bus service), then increasing the bus fares would disadvantage those residents. This seems like another bad consequence to me. If low-income and city-tax exempt residents can't use or are less likely the bus service that the city counselors want Greenville residents to primarily use, then the weakens that the city counselors should raise the bus fare.

D. Careful here! I didn't realize that increasing local taxes has NOTHING to do with raising bus fares. My bad. This answer does not affect the argument.

E. If everyone in Greenville who earns wages above the nationally mandated minimum pays the city wage tax, then raising the bus fare would not benefit Greenville residents who pay taxes.

Does this make sense? Ask more questions if you need help.

Why does C weaken the argument if the low-income individuals aren't taxpayers? Isn't the city councilor's proposal to raise bus fares only meant to help taxpayers?

Granger Danger

Look at the rest of AC C. If all the city counselors agree that TAX-EXEMPT residents should be able to take advantage of the city-run services, then increasing bus fares would disadvantage those city residents whose low incomes make them exempt from city taxes. There is referential language in this AC.

I don't think C weakens the argument if low-income individuals aren't taxpayers. This AC addresses that gap. Even if low-income individuals aren't taxpayers, that's okay. All the city counselors agree that tax-exempt residents should be able to take advantage of city-run services. With that, if tax-exempt residents would be less likely or unable to take advantage of the city-run services, then this is a problem, and maybe raising the bus fares isn't the best option.

Ashley2018-1

@"Granger Danger" said:
Look at the rest of AC C. If all the city counselors agree that TAX-EXEMPT residents should be able to take advantage of the city-run services, then increasing bus fares would disadvantage those city residents whose low incomes make them exempt from city taxes. There is referential language in this AC.

I don't think C weakens the argument if low-income individuals aren't taxpayers. This AC addresses that gap. Even if low-income individuals aren't taxpayers, that's okay. All the city counselors agree that tax-exempt residents should be able to take advantage of city-run services. With that, if tax-exempt residents would be less likely or unable to take advantage of the city-run services, then this is a problem, and maybe raising the bus fares isn't the best option.

So that last portion of C, where it states that all city-councillors also want these low-income folks to be able to ride the bus is what makes this answer choice correct?

Is the city councillor trying to help taxpayers?

Granger Danger

This answer is incorrect because it weakens the argument as I described. This question is a weaken EXCEPT question, so therefore, four answers weaken or barely weaken, and one answer does not weaken.

I have no idea if the city councillors are trying to help taxpayers.

Granger Danger

Manhattan prep explanations are also very useful for the earlier tests that don't have explanations on 7sage.

https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/forums/q19-fares-on-the-city-run-t1005.html

Ashley2018-1

@"Granger Danger" said:
Manhattan prep explanations are also very useful for the earlier tests that don't have explanations on 7sage.

https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/forums/q19-fares-on-the-city-run-t1005.html

Believe me, I use every resource possible before asking on these forums lol. 7sage needs to get around posting explanations for the older exams but I don't think they will.

Timmy Is an Avg Kid that No One Understands

Man you have got to let this question go...I promise you it won't hurt you

Ashley2018-1

@"Timmy Is an Avg Kid that No One Understands" said:
Man you have got to let this question go...I promise you it won't hurt you

I will as soon as I get all of my questions answered.

cklomoooooo-1

Hey Ashley,

Conclusion: bus fares should be raised enough to cover the cost of the service.
Why? because city tax should be used primarily to benefit the people who pay them and city tax are subsidizing fares on public bus that go towards people who live outside the city.

Couple flaws/assumptions: I see here: it takes for granted that people who doesn't live in the county don't contribute to city tax revenues like sales taxes?
it also fails to consider that increasing the fares means more money being paid by people taking the bus overall, what if majority of bus takers who don't have low fares are from the city? What if higher fare means more subsidizing?
A) Eliminate, weakening the argument by giving a reason not to raise the price
B)ditto
C) This answer choice is very strange... but using the logic of "if true", adding to the argument it does makes the argument weaker by having contradicting premises (the things counselors said are inconsistent).
D) this is the correct answer, it doesn't propose anything to weaken the argument. People opposing doesn't mean it shouldn't be raise.
E)Eliminate, it match one of my expected assumption, people who live outside the city actually contribute to the city tax.

McBeck418

The stimulus wants you to believe that people who don't pay taxes in the city shouldn't be able to use the services, but that isn't what it's actually saying. The stimulus says outside commuters are benefitting from the low fares, but it never says they shouldn't. It just says that tax payer money should primarily benefit taxpayers. It does not say tax payer money should only benefit tax payers.

Answer choice C weakens the argument because like A and B, it introduce a reason why raising the fares would be harmful to the city/people. Just because tax-exempt people are not the 'primary' beneficiaries doesn't mean they shouldn't also be able to benefit from the services. So preventing them from using the buses would cause them harm and therefore, that's not good.

D says people don't want their taxes to increase. But what people want and don't want doesn't actually demonstrate any harm to the city/people. How people feel about an issue doesn't impact whether or not it should be introduced unless they're an expert in this specific area.

Ashley2018-1

@McBeck418 said:
The stimulus wants you to believe that people who don't pay taxes in the city shouldn't be able to use the services, but that isn't what it's actually saying. The stimulus says outside commuters are benefitting from the low fares, but it never says they shouldn't. It just says that tax payer money should primarily benefit taxpayers. It does not say tax payer money should only benefit tax payers.

Answer choice C weakens the argument because like A and B, it introduce a reason why raising the fares would be harmful to the city/people. Just because tax-exempt people are not the 'primary' beneficiaries doesn't mean they shouldn't also be able to benefit from the services. So preventing them from using the buses would cause them harm and therefore, that's not good.

D says people don't want their taxes to increase. But what people want and don't want doesn't actually demonstrate any harm to the city/people. How people feel about an issue doesn't impact whether or not it should be introduced unless they're an expert in this specific area.

Oh, I didn't see that bit about "primarily" benefit taxpayers! Thank you for pointing that out! Different people see the same question differently and it helps getting all these perspectives.

The only bit I have a question about is regarding the word "many" in answer choice D. I've noticed a trend where incorrect answer choices for strengthening/weakening questions seem to contain this word and I want to know why it's problematic

McBeck418

Many just suggests at least one. So when “at least one person” is opposed to increased taxes, that is pretty weak language. No one would make policy on that basis either way. You wouldn’t “strengthen” the argument saying at least one and you wouldn’t “weaken” the argument by stating at least one.