PT10.S1.Q19 - Need new perspective about answer choice (C)

Ashley2018-1Ashley2018-1 Alum Member
edited August 2021 in Logical Reasoning 2249 karma

I'm a little confused about the relationship between the taxes and bus fare in this stimulus. In the first sentence, when it says bus fares are subsidized by city taxes, does that mean at least some of the fare is covered by these taxes? And when the councillors argue that city taxes should benefit those who pay them, is he assuming that people who commute from outside the city don't pay any taxes? Is that why he concludes that bus fares should be raised? to lessen the burden on the taxpayers? Is D wrong because it is talking about raising taxes and not the bus fares?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Comments

  • Bagelinthemorning-2-1-1Bagelinthemorning-2-1-1 Core Member
    476 karma

    Hello @Ashley25, yes, you are right, the bus fare subsidized means that a portion is paid by the government. He is also assuming that people who commute are not paying the taxes. The answer D is incorrect because it mentions that those who benefit (mentioned in the premise) are opposed to the increase, which goes against the argument. Therefore, it weakens it.

  • tealeavesbreadloavestealeavesbreadloaves Member
    edited June 2021 239 karma

    Hey Ashley! This is an EXCEPT question, and D is actually the correct answer because it doesn't weaken. D doesn't weaken because what voters think don't matter (in the context of this argument). Your interpretation of the first sentence of the stimulus is correct.

    I think it's a reasonable assumption to make that non-city residents don't pay city taxes, but yes, the author would be assuming that. But the author isn't saying bus fares should be raised to ease the burden on taxpayers. She's saying that because, like many politicians argue, and as the stimulus also states, she doesn't think people who don't pay taxes should benefit from the taxes, in this case, the current bus fare. She thinks that non-taxpayers don't get to reap this benefit. Obviously, this is a pretty flawed argument because the result would be burdening current taxpayers!

    The tricky answer here might be (C) because you see "exempt from tax" and you might think it's irrelevant (the first time I read it, I did). But if you read on, (C) tells you that all city councillors would not want to disadvantage the tax-exempt, lower-income residents (thank goodness they have hearts). So this weakens the argument--the proposal to raise city bus fares. Let me know if this helps!

  • Ashley2018-1Ashley2018-1 Alum Member
    edited June 2021 2249 karma

    @tealeavesbreadloaves said:
    Hey Ashley! This is an EXCEPT question, and D is actually the correct answer because it doesn't weaken. D doesn't weaken because what voters think don't matter (in the context of this argument). Your interpretation of the first sentence of the stimulus is correct.

    I think it's a reasonable assumption to make that non-city residents don't pay city taxes, but yes, the author would be assuming that. But the author isn't saying bus fares should be raised to ease the burden on taxpayers. She's saying that because, like many politicians argue, and as the stimulus also states, she doesn't think people who don't pay taxes should benefit from the taxes, in this case, the current bus fare. She thinks that non-taxpayers don't get to reap this benefit. Obviously, this is a pretty flawed argument because the result would be burdening current taxpayers!

    The tricky answer here might be (C) because you see "exempt from tax" and you might think it's irrelevant (the first time I read it, I did). But if you read on, (C) tells you that all city councillors would not want to disadvantage the tax-exempt, lower-income residents (thank goodness they have hearts). So this weakens the argument--the proposal to raise city bus fares. Let me know if this helps!

    Why does E weaken? When it says "people who work in G," could I assume that to be the "people who commute from outside the city to jobs in G?" mentioned in the first line of the stimulus?

    So the city councillor wants to raise the bus fare so that these outside commuters would pay their fair share? Does E weaken because it points out that they already do by paying taxes?

  • tealeavesbreadloavestealeavesbreadloaves Member
    edited June 2021 239 karma

    @Ashley25 E weakens because it gives another potential detrimental effect of the proposal and attacks another assumption of the city councillors. The city councillors' entire reason for the proposal is because they don't want non-taxpayers commuting to Greenville reaping the tax-sponsored benefit of the current bus fare. But if everyone who works in Greenville pays the taxes, then raising the bus fare would only harm the taxpayers and not achieve any of the city councillors' intended goal! (Everyone who works in Greenville necessarily includes those who commute to Greenville to work.) From this answer choice, you can see that the city councillors are also assuming that the benefits of raising the bus fare (not letting non-taxpayers get a cheap joyride) will outweigh the con (burdening taxpayers).

    Hope this helps!

  • Ashley2018-1Ashley2018-1 Alum Member
    edited June 2021 2249 karma

    @tealeavesbreadloaves said:
    @Ashley25 E weakens because it gives another potential detrimental effect of the proposal and attacks another assumption of the city councillors. The city councillors' entire reason for the proposal is because they don't want non-taxpayers commuting to Greenville reaping the tax-sponsored benefit of the current bus fare. But if everyone who works in Greenville pays the taxes, then raising the bus fare would only harm the taxpayers and not achieve any of the city councillors' intended goal! (Everyone who works in Greenville necessarily includes those who commute to Greenville to work.) From this answer choice, you can see that the city councillors are also assuming that the benefits of raising the bus fare (not letting non-taxpayers get a cheap joyride) will outweigh the con (burdening taxpayers).

    Hope this helps!

    thanks again for responding; this question doesn't have an explanation vid so this will also help others in the future who might have the same problems....so this argument boils down to a politician disliking that a group of people (non-taxpayers) "freeloading" off the city's subsidized bus fares so he comes up with a plan to make sure they pay their fare share but doesn't take into account its potential problems (might backfire since it puts more financial burden on taxpayers)

    I really hope to see more of you; getting a response can be like pulling teeth!

  • tealeavesbreadloavestealeavesbreadloaves Member
    239 karma

    @Ashley25 That's right! Freeloading is essentially what the argument is based on. I'm glad that helped!! I originally struggled with this question, too, because the stimulus is (intentionally) written in a way that is confusing, but a good trick with all questions (and especially weakening questions, I find) is to paraphrase the argument in your head--in a way that you can understand it and in a way that doesn't misread the argument. :)

  • Ashley2018-1Ashley2018-1 Alum Member
    edited July 2021 2249 karma

    @tealeavesbreadloaves said:
    @Ashley25 That's right! Freeloading is essentially what the argument is based on. I'm glad that helped!! I originally struggled with this question, too, because the stimulus is (intentionally) written in a way that is confusing, but a good trick with all questions (and especially weakening questions, I find) is to paraphrase the argument in your head--in a way that you can understand it and in a way that doesn't misread the argument. :)

    Reviving this thread, so looking back at answer choice C, I feel that it gives conflicting signals. I also thought the fact that they were exempt from paying taxes would make them irrelevant to the argument and yet the last half of the answer choice was holding me back from discounting this choice completely.

    If this plan to make everyone pay their fair share by raising the bus fares is supposed to benefit the taxpayers then why does it matter that these low income individuals are negatively impacted? After all, they aren't part of the group the city councillor is trying to help (taxpayers)

    And why would the city councilor making this proposal think raising bus fares was a good idea? Wouldn’t this impact taxpayers?

  • Ashley2018-1Ashley2018-1 Alum Member
    2249 karma

    @Bagelinthemorning said:
    Hello @Ashley25, yes, you are right, the bus fare subsidized means that a portion is paid by the government. He is also assuming that people who commute are not paying the taxes. The answer D is incorrect because it mentions that those who benefit (mentioned in the premise) are opposed to the increase, which goes against the argument. Therefore, it weakens it.

    I noticed this while giving this question a once-over...D doesn't weaken the argument; D is the correct answer because it doesn't weaken.

  • canihazJDcanihazJD Alum Member Sage ⭐
    8491 karma

    taxes should be used to benefit taxpayers
    tax for bus would benefit non-tax payers
    so increase bus fare instead

    C: Increased fares disadvantage residents who should be able to ride the bus

    I also thought the fact that they were exempt from paying taxes would make them irrelevant to the argument

    That part is a distractor element. The rest of the AC renders it irrelevant.

    why does it matter that these low income individuals are negatively impacted?

    Because they tell you that they should be able to ride the bus.

    After all, they aren't part of the group the city councillor is trying to help (taxpayers)

    Yes, which is why a measure that would disadvantage them would weaken the argument.

    also from your second post on this...

    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?

    Because you get the additional premise in the AC that they should be able to use all city services (the bus).

    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?

    Yes.

    How would raising bus fares for everyone in the city help taxpayers? Wouldn't that mean taxpayers would end up having to pay more?

    Distributing the cost across bus riders only would theoretically mean you dont have to increase taxes which would require even non-bus riders to pay for the bus. Same theory as pay at the pump taxes for things like road maintenance.

    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?

    Only people who ride the bus, taxpayer or not.

  • Ashley2018-1Ashley2018-1 Alum Member
    edited July 2021 2249 karma

    @canihazJD said:
    taxes should be used to benefit taxpayers
    tax for bus would benefit non-tax payers
    so increase bus fare instead

    C: Increased fares disadvantage residents who should be able to ride the bus

    I also thought the fact that they were exempt from paying taxes would make them irrelevant to the argument

    That part is a distractor element. The rest of the AC renders it irrelevant.

    why does it matter that these low income individuals are negatively impacted?

    Because they tell you that they should be able to ride the bus.

    After all, they aren't part of the group the city councillor is trying to help (taxpayers)

    Yes, which is why a measure that would disadvantage them would weaken the argument.

    also from your second post on this...

    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?

    Because you get the additional premise in the AC that they should be able to use all city services (the bus).

    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?

    Yes.

    How would raising bus fares for everyone in the city help taxpayers? Wouldn't that mean taxpayers would end up having to pay more?

    Distributing the cost across bus riders only would theoretically mean you dont have to increase taxes which would require even non-bus riders to pay for the bus. Same theory as pay at the pump taxes for things like road maintenance.

    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?

    Only people who ride the bus, taxpayer or not.

    @canihazJD said:
    taxes should be used to benefit taxpayers
    tax for bus would benefit non-tax payers
    so increase bus fare instead

    C: Increased fares disadvantage residents who should be able to ride the bus

    I also thought the fact that they were exempt from paying taxes would make them irrelevant to the argument

    That part is a distractor element. The rest of the AC renders it irrelevant.

    why does it matter that these low income individuals are negatively impacted?

    Because they tell you that they should be able to ride the bus.

    After all, they aren't part of the group the city councillor is trying to help (taxpayers)

    Yes, which is why a measure that would disadvantage them would weaken the argument.

    also from your second post on this...

    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?

    Because you get the additional premise in the AC that they should be able to use all city services (the bus).

    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?

    Yes.

    How would raising bus fares for everyone in the city help taxpayers? Wouldn't that mean taxpayers would end up having to pay more?

    Distributing the cost across bus riders only would theoretically mean you dont have to increase taxes which would require even non-bus riders to pay for the bus. Same theory as pay at the pump taxes for things like road maintenance.

    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?

    Only people who ride the bus, taxpayer or not.

    @canihazJD said:
    taxes should be used to benefit taxpayers
    tax for bus would benefit non-tax payers
    so increase bus fare instead

    C: Increased fares disadvantage residents who should be able to ride the bus

    I also thought the fact that they were exempt from paying taxes would make them irrelevant to the argument

    That part is a distractor element. The rest of the AC renders it irrelevant.

    why does it matter that these low income individuals are negatively impacted?

    Because they tell you that they should be able to ride the bus.

    After all, they aren't part of the group the city councillor is trying to help (taxpayers)

    Yes, which is why a measure that would disadvantage them would weaken the argument.

    also from your second post on this...

    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?

    Because you get the additional premise in the AC that they should be able to use all city services (the bus).

    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?

    Yes.

    How would raising bus fares for everyone in the city help taxpayers? Wouldn't that mean taxpayers would end up having to pay more?

    Distributing the cost across bus riders only would theoretically mean you dont have to increase taxes which would require even non-bus riders to pay for the bus. Same theory as pay at the pump taxes for things like road maintenance.

    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?

    Only people who ride the bus, taxpayer or not.

    Hello, thank you for responding

    I thought the rationale for raising the bus fares ("city taxes should be used primarily to benefit the people who pay them, aka taxpayers") would come into conflict with answer choice C because it was talking about non-taxpayers. I know you said the portion that states these people are non-taxpayers is a distractor, but I had no idea.

    I had someone else on the forum state the city councillor's plan was not so much to help the taxpayers but to make it so that non-taxpayers are paying their fair share...is that not quite correct because the city councillor seems that he wants to relieve the burden from taxpayers.

    Is that what the city councillor means when he says "city taxes should be used primarily to benefit the people who pay them"? Since answer choice C provides an additional consideration, aka they want to make sure low-income people can ride the bus too, is that why there's no conflict between the two rationales the city councillors hold?

  • canihazJDcanihazJD Alum Member Sage ⭐
    8491 karma

    I thought the rationale for raising the bus fares ("city taxes should be used primarily to benefit the people who pay them, aka taxpayers") would come into conflict with answer choice C because it was talking about non-taxpayers.

    How? Whenever we "thought" something without being able to articulate exactly how, we are quite often falling for a trap.

    I had someone else on the forum state the city councillor's plan was not so much to help the taxpayers but to make it so that non-taxpayers are paying their fair share...is that not quite correct because the city councillor seems that he wants to relieve the burden from taxpayers.

    Is that what the city councillor means when he says "city taxes should be used primarily to benefit the people who pay them"? Since answer choice C provides an additional consideration, aka they want to make sure low-income people can ride the bus too, is that why there's no conflict between the two rationales the city councillors hold?

    I think those are reasonably interchangeable for the purpose of this question.

  • Ashley2018-1Ashley2018-1 Alum Member
    edited July 2021 2249 karma

    @canihazJD said:

    I thought the rationale for raising the bus fares ("city taxes should be used primarily to benefit the people who pay them, aka taxpayers") would come into conflict with answer choice C because it was talking about non-taxpayers.

    How? Whenever we "thought" something without being able to articulate exactly how, we are quite often falling for a trap.

    I had someone else on the forum state the city councillor's plan was not so much to help the taxpayers but to make it so that non-taxpayers are paying their fair share...is that not quite correct because the city councillor seems that he wants to relieve the burden from taxpayers.

    Is that what the city councillor means when he says "city taxes should be used primarily to benefit the people who pay them"? Since answer choice C provides an additional consideration, aka they want to make sure low-income people can ride the bus too, is that why there's no conflict between the two rationales the city councillors hold?

    I think those are reasonably interchangeable for the purpose of this question.

    I think I pinpointed my source of confusion. The city councillor's goal to help taxpayers by raising bus fares (so that everyone would pay their fair share) and their desire to encourage low-income people to ride the bus are not mutually exclusive?

  • canihazJDcanihazJD Alum Member Sage ⭐
    8491 karma

    @Ashley2018 yes.

  • Ashley2018-1Ashley2018-1 Alum Member
    2249 karma

    @canihazJD said:
    @Ashley2018 yes.

    Thank you!

    as for AC D, do the opinions of voters' have any impact on the argument?

  • canihazJDcanihazJD Alum Member Sage ⭐
    8491 karma

    I would say no. Plus what does "strongly opposed" mean? Does it include this specific bus tax? And how many is "many"? 5? 20?

  • Ashley2018-1Ashley2018-1 Alum Member
    edited July 2021 2249 karma

    @canihazJD said:
    I would say no. Plus what does "strongly opposed" mean? Does it include this specific bus tax? And how many is "many"? 5? 20?

    Thank you! As a general rule of thumb though, for weakening/strengthening questions, I shouldn't eliminate answer choices just because they say "many" or "some" right? I have noticed a recurring pattern where answer choices containing either of those two terms are incorrect and I'm left wondering why; aside from other flaws specific to those choices, is it also because "some" and "many" are just too weak to have much of an impact on the argument?

  • Pete Butti-JUDGEPete Butti-JUDGE Core Member
    7 karma

    @Ashley2018 said:

    @canihazJD said:
    I would say no. Plus what does "strongly opposed" mean? Does it include this specific bus tax? And how many is "many"? 5? 20?

    Thank you! As a general rule of thumb though, for weakening/strengthening questions, I shouldn't eliminate answer choices just because they say "many" or "some" right? I have noticed a recurring pattern where answer choices containing either of those two terms are incorrect and I'm left wondering why; aside from other flaws specific to those choices, is it also because "some" and "many" are just too weak to have much of an impact on the argument?

    I think what this question highlights is that AC C brings a new premise into the mix. I also figured that AC C was correct as soon as it mentioned "exempt from city taxes," but the second part of the AC brings in a new premise. I didn't realize the test makers could add a premise in the ACs -- do you know if this is normal? I haven't seen it anywhere else.

    Also, I guess you could philosophically argue that those exempt from taxes are still paying them -- they are just $0. Brings to mind the argument around the healthcare individual mandate still "existing" when it was made $0.

  • jknarf513jknarf513 Member
    189 karma

    For AC C, without the second half of the sentence ("and all city councillors agree...services"), you'd be right to say that we're not really weakening the argument because why should we care about those exempt from city taxes? After all, the stim tells that "taxes should be used to benefit the people who pay them", which is why we're raising the bus fare to target non-tax payers.
    But then when we read through the second half of AC C, we see why we should care about these people who are exempt from city taxes: because just as the councillors think that taxpayers should benefit from city-run services, they also think that these disadvantaged people should be able to take advantage of them, too.
    Therefore, now that we know the councillors care about these people's ability to use city services, we know that if this measure made it harder for disadvantaged people to use city services, it would at the very least make the city councillors think twice about the proposal.
    @jrschultz14 for weakening/strengthening questions, this not unusual, especially with causation questions. Think of this not so much as an entirely new premise, but as an assumption the author made/didn't make that we are either going to affirm/reject. So, if this was a regular (not except) weakening question, I would say that what C is doing is calling out an assumption the author is making--that this proposal is not going to negatively impact something the councillors also care about-- and then saying that it shouldn't have made that assumption, because such a thing is true; this proposal _is_going to impact something the councillors also care about.

Sign In or Register to comment.