PTB.S4.Q14 - Our legislators need to act quickly to counter...

jmwillis98jmwillis98 Live Member
edited August 2023 in Logical Reasoning 18 karma

Can someone explain this necessary assumption problem to me? I got the question wrong the first time and during blind review (I answered B, then E). The answer doesn't seem to be A or C, so it must be D. But why?

Comments

  • maco4538maco4538 Alum Member
    323 karma

    Consider what sort of argument the author is making so we can preface the sort of assumptions that come with it. The author is making a proposal. Assumptions tied to a proposal: (1) action is imperative (we must do something, and doing nothing is not an option), (2) there is only one option (we have to what the author proposes and there are no other alternative options). (3) the proposal is worthwhile (the benefits outweigh the drawbacks in doing what the author proposes). (4) The goal of the proposal is achievable within the means of the proposal (what we assume will result from the proposal is actually possible).

    In this case, the right answer relates to (4): the goal of the proposal is achievable within the means of the proposal. In other words, we can counter unemployment by granting tax cuts to the upper-income citizens.

    Conclusion: we need a major tax cut for our upper-income citizens.

    Why?

    Premise: (Because) We need to counter the level of unemployment and large investment would create new jobs.

    The argument is riding on the assumption that a tax cut for the upper-income citizens would create new jobs.

    We test the answer choice by negating it:

    D negated: upper-income citizens would not use the money gained from the tax cut in a way that increase investment.

    So, if it would not increase investment then it would not create new jobs. Therefore, the argument fails is D is negated, so D must be true for the argument to work.

    A could be false and the argument would still work:

    A negated: the recession in the citizen's country is not the worst in its history.
    So what? Does is have to be the worst recession for the citizen's proposal to work? No.

    E could also be false, and the argument would still work:

    E negated: in the past tax cuts for certain groups of people have not tended to create new jobs.
    So what? What if circumstance now is different from what they were in the past. What has happened in the past does not necessarily dictate what could happen in the present. Conditions are not exactly the same to make that comparison.

Sign In or Register to comment.