Economist: A tax is effective if it raises revenue and burdens all and only those persons targeted by the tax. A tax is ineffective, however, if it does not raise revenue and it costs a significant amount of money to enforce.

Summary

If a tax raises revenue and burdens only people targeted by the tax, then then tax is effective. If a tax does not raise revenue and it costs a significant amount of money to enforce, then the tax is ineffective.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

If a tax is ineffective, then it either does not raise revenue or it does not burden all and only people targeted by the tax.

A
The tax on cigarettes burdens most, but not all, of the people targeted by it. Thus, if it raises revenue, the tax is effective.

This answer is unsupported. This answer fails one of our sufficient conditions for a tax to be considered effective. We need both of the sufficient conditions in order for a tax to be considered effective.

B
The tax on alcohol raises a modest amount of revenue, but it costs a significant amount of money to enforce. Thus, the tax is ineffective.

This answer is unsupported. This answer fails one of our sufficient conditions for a tax to be considered ineffective. We need both of the sufficient conditions in order for a tax to be considered ineffective.

C
The tax on gasoline costs a significant amount of money to enforce. Thus, if it does not raise revenue, the tax is ineffective.

This answer is strongly supported. It meets both of our sufficient conditions we are given for a tax to be considered ineffective.

D
The tax on coal burdens all of the people targeted by it, and this tax does not burden anyone who is not targeted by it. Thus, the tax is effective.

This answer is unsupported. There are two sufficient conditions to be met in order for a tax to be considered effective. This answer only satisfies one of the two sufficient conditions.

E
The tax on steel does not cost a significant amount of money to enforce, but it does not raise revenue either. Thus, the tax is ineffective.

This answer is unsupported. This answer fails one of our sufficient conditions for a tax to be considered ineffective. We need both of the sufficient conditions in order for a tax to be considered ineffective.


3 comments

Essayist: Many people are hypocritical in that they often pretend to be more morally upright than they really are. When hypocrisy is exposed, hypocrites are embarrassed by their moral lapse, which motivates them and others to try to become better people. On the other hand, when hypocrisy persists without exposure, the belief that most people are good is fostered, which motivates most people to try to be good.

Summary

An essayist details what happens when hypocrisy is and is not exposed. When hypocrisy is exposed, hypocrites become embarrassed and try to become better people. When hypocrisy remains unexposed, people believe that most people are good, which motivates most people to be good.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Whether or not hypocrisy is exposed, some people will try to better themselves.

A
The existence of hypocrisy encourages people to believe that no one is morally blameless.

This is too strong to support. The stimulus only says that embarrassed hypocrites try to better themselves once hypocrisy is exposed.

B
The existence of hypocrisy encourages people to make efforts to live by moral standards.

The stimulus details that some people will strive to become more morally virtuous whether hypocrisy is exposed or not. Thus, this is easily supported

C
The existence of hypocrisy in some people encourages others to fall into moral lapses.

The stimulus does not say anything about when people fall into moral lapses.

D
The hiding of hypocrisy is a better way of motivating people to try to be good than is the exposing of it.

This comparative statement does not receive enough support. The stimulus does not say one approach is better than the other.

E
There is no stronger motivator for people to try to be good than the exposing of hypocrisy.

This is too strong to support. The stimulus says that exposing hypocrisy is *a* motivator, not that it is the strongest one.


10 comments

Psychologist: Some people contend that children should never be reprimanded. Any criticism, let alone punishment, they say, harms children’s self-esteem. This view is laudable in its challenge to the belief that children should be punished whenever they misbehave, yet it gives a dangerous answer to the question of how often punishment should be inflicted. When parents never reprimand their children, they are in effect rewarding them for unacceptable behavior, and rewarded behavior tends to recur.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The psychologist refutes the idea that children should never be reprimanded or punished. While it has some merit, she says this idea is dangerous because never punishing children rewards them for bad behavior. This encourages them to continue to misbehave.

Identify Argument Part
The contention that children should never be reprimanded is what the argument is designed to refute. The psychologist allows that the idea has some merit, but has a very undesirable consequence.

A
is designed to discredit entirely
This answer choice is not completely accurate because while the argument ultimately refutes the view, it does not “entirely” discredit it. The argument is “laudable,” meaning it has some good qualities, it just has a big problem.
B
is designed to establish as true
This is incorrect because the psychologist is refuting this view, saying that it has dangerous results.
C
is designed to establish as well intentioned
While the author does address the well-intentioned parts of the argument, the argument’s true goal is to establish why this view is problematic.
D
claims has a serious flaw though is not without value
This most accurately describes the role of the view in the argument. The author argues the view is “dangerous” or seriously flawed, with the caveat that part of the view is “laudable” or valuable.
E
claims is less reasonable than any other view mentioned
No other view is mentioned. The author argues there is a problem with the view, not about its relative reasonableness.

6 comments