PT19.S4.Q18 - politician: a government that taxes

Barack Obama 2.0

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-4-question-18/
I'm posing this question primarily because of answer choice A on PT19 S4 Q18. Answer choice A is incorrect but I chose it because I thought the economist was simply contradicting the politician's conclusion which I thought was a principle.

hlsat180

A principle is a broad rule, belief, or claim and (on the LSAT) often appears as a premise and/or sufficient assumption.

Answer A simply fails to describe the economist's method of reasoning. If the economist stated a different principle (for example), "taxes ought to be proportional to changes in economic activity," then Answer A could be correct. Instead, in order to attack the politician's argument, the economist simply applies the politician's own principle to demonstrate a contradictory conclusion.

P.S. Recommend you title this type of post in a more general format, for example, "PT19.S4.Q18 - Politician: A government that taxes" categorized under Logical Reasoning.

Barack Obama 2.0

ah okay, gotcha. So the fact that the economist's conclusion contradicts the politician's politician is not enough for (A) to be correct because it doesn't encapsulate the economist's entire method of reasoning? Because the politician's conclusion is a principle and the economists conclusion is just the negation of said principle so it follows that they are not compatible.