PT2.S2.Q5 - A gas tax of one cent per gallon

Comments

• 1 Like

  canihazJD Alum Member Sage ⭐

  November 2020 edited November 2020 8491 karma

  A gas tax of one cent per gallon would raise one billion dollars per year at current consumption rates. Since a tax of fifty cents per gallon would therefore raise fifty billion dollars per year, it seems a perfect way to deal with the federal budget deficit. This tax would have the additional advantage that the resulting drop in the demand for gasoline would be ecologically sound and would keep our country from being too dependent on foreign oil producers.

  Translation:

  At current consumption rates a tax of fifty cents per gallon would raise fifty billion dollars per year

  ...and result in a drop in gas demand (holup...).

  Therefore it seems a perfect way to deal with the federal budget deficit.

  Does it though? The claim that the gas tax would be a perfect way to deal with the budget deficit is based on the premise of $50b at current consumption rates. The argument then goes on to state that the tax will lower consumption.

  Although we don't attack premises, the flag should go up when you read the first two sentences... you can't just assume the rate will remain constant if the tax is raised, because higher tax has a prohibitive effect. As it turns out we don't have to attack the premises because the argument does it for us.

  Which one of the following most clearly identifies an error in the author’s reasoning?

  Flaw: Conclusion is employs two incompatible premises for support.

  (A) The author cites irrelevant data.

  I think this is descriptively inaccurate. The data presented in the first sentence is relevant.

  (B) The author relies on incorrect current consumption figures.

  We don't know this, nor do we get to assume this... descriptively inaccurate.

  (C) The author makes incompatible assumptions.

  This is our flaw. The assumption that 1 cent/1 billion extrapolates to 50 cents/50 billion is not compatible with the assumption that the 50 cent tax will also reduce consumption.

  (D) The author mistakes an effect for a cause.

  The only causal claim is that if implemented the gas tax will lower demand, which will lower dependency. We don't have a phenomenon to which the argument assigns cause/effect... descriptively inaccurate.

  (E) The author appeals to conscience rather than reason.

  No appeal takes place. This would be something along the lines of, "reducing consumption would be the right thing to do" ...descriptively inaccurate.
• omerico7 Member

  November 2020 94 karma

  @canihazJD Thank you so much!
• moonstars5678 Member

  April 2022 166 karma

  @canihazJD - This was super helpful. Quick question - how did you know that the last sentence about ecologically sound + less dependence on foreign oil was part of the argument vs more of a throwaway acknowledgement?

  I had a hard time understanding if it was another independent premise or irrelevant to the core argument (which I just thought was the 50c/gal tax would yield $50B --> best solution to solve for the deficit).
• canihazJD Alum Member Sage ⭐

  April 2022 edited April 2022 8491 karma

  @moonstars5678 said:

  It didn't need to be in there but they put it there anyway... and everything they put there has a purpose, even if its just to waste your time or screw with you. The clue should be recognizing you cant have both reduced and 50x the consumption.

  I had a hard time understanding if it was another independent premise or irrelevant to the core argument

  I wouldn't waste energy on that... whether it is relevant or not it contradicts the thing you knew for sure was a premise. Even if you assume its not support for the conclusion (I would say it is though) its still something they gave you... which you take as fact... that generates an internal contradiction.

  You can say you don't need certain roadblocks they put up, but you can't just pretend it's not there.