Summarize Argument
Tax cuts across all income brackets tend to benefit the wealthy. Why does this happen? To keep revenue the same, tax cuts on income require revenue to be generated with other, non-progressive taxes. Non-progressive taxes benefit the wealthy. Alternatively, if revenue is allowed to decrease, the budget deficit will increase. This means government borrowing will have to increase, which causes interest rates to increase. Increased interest rates also benefit the wealthy, because they have money to lend. Either result of across the board tax cuts ends up benefitting the wealthy.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the authors claim that income taxes for all brackets disproportionately benefit the wealthy: “across-the-board cuts for all brackets tend to have a similar effect.”
A
Cuts in personal income tax rates for upper income brackets benefit the wealthy more than they benefit others.
This is context that sets up the authors argument about the results of across-the-board cuts for all brackets.
B
Across-the-board cuts in personal income tax rates do not generate enough additional economic activity to prevent a net loss of revenue.
This is not contained in the stimulus. There is no discussion of generating economic activity.
C
It is the wealthy who are favored by generating a high amount of revenue through nonprogressive taxes.
This is a premise that supports the claim that across the board tax cuts ultimately end up benefitting the wealthy. It shows how it occurs.
D
It is primarily the wealthy who benefit from increases in the budget deficit, which drive up interest rates.
This is another premise that supports the claim that across the board tax cuts ultimately end up benefitting the wealthy. It shows how it occurs.
E
Across-the-board personal income tax rate cuts generally benefit the wealthy more than they benefit others.
This accurately paraphrases the conclusion. The author is demonstrating that across-the-board cuts for all brackets benefit the wealthy. Benefitting the wealthy is the “similar effect” the conclusion refers to.
Summary
History is full of people making breakthroughs by changing the way they thought about a particular topic. For example, Copernicus made advancements by looking differently at information already available. Jenner discovered the smallpox vaccine when he focused on disease prevention rather than the more common perspective of curing disease.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Scientific advancement can result in part from taking a new perspective.
A
Many valuable intellectual accomplishments occur by chance.
Unsupported. We don’t know that the examples discussed in the stimulus involved discoveries by “chance.” There might not have been anything random about these discoveries.
B
Shifting from earlier modes of thought can result in important advances.
Strongly supported. The stimulus provides several examples of scientific advances that came after scientists changed the way they thought about a topic. This is evidence that such changed perspectives can result in advances.
C
The ability to look at information from a different point of view is rare.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t suggest anything about the frequency of the ability to take a different point of view. Maybe the vast majority of people have this ability.
D
Understanding is advanced less often by better organization of available information than it is by the accumulation of new information.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t compare the likelihood of advancement through new information vs. organization of existing information.
E
Dramatic intellectual breakthroughs are more easily accomplished in fields in which the amount of information available is relatively small.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t compare the ease of making breakthroughs in different fields. We don’t know that the fields involved in the examples in the stimulus involve different amounts of information available.
Tyra: I accept Aristotle’s principle of justice, but it’s human nature to want to do special favors for friends. Indeed, that’s what friends are—those for whom you would do special favors. It’s not unjust for dentists to do that.
Speaker 1 Summary
Otis concludes that it’s wrong for a dentist to schedule an after-hours appointment for a family friend but not to do it for someone else. This is because Aristotle’s principle of justice says that we should treat relevantly similar cases similarly. Otis’s assumption is that the case of a family friend and the case of someone else are relevantly similar.
Speaker 2 Summary
Tyra concludes that dentists’ treating friends differently from others does not violate Aristotle’s principle of justice. This is because friends are those for whom we do special favors.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether it’s wrong for dentists to schedule after-hours appointments for friends, but not for others. They also disagree about whether the case of friends and others are relevantly similar.
A
Aristotle’s principle of justice is widely applicable
Neither speaker expresses an opinion. They agree with Aristotle’s principle of justice, but neither suggests any belief about how widely it’s applicable. Tyra doesn’t say the principle doesn’t apply to the dentist situation. She’s applies the principle, but finds no violation.
B
situations involving friends and situations involving others should be considered relevantly similar cases
This is a point of disagreement. Otis thinks they are relevantly similar. This is why he thinks inconsistent treatment is wrong. Tyra doesn’t think they’re relevantly similar. This is why she doesn’t find anything wrong with inconsistent treatment.
C
human nature makes it impossible to treat relevantly similar cases similarly
Neither expresses an opinion. Otis doesn’t discuss human nature. Tyra says it’s human nature to want to help our friends. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible to treat similar cases similarly.
D
dentists should be willing to schedule an after-hours appointment for anyone who asks
Neither expresses an opinion about this. Otis only wants dentists to do such scheduling consistently. Either friends and others both get after-hours, or neither do. Tyra only says after-hours appointments for friends is not unjust. She doesn’t say what dentists should do.
E
Aristotle recognizes that friendship sometimes morally outweighs justice
Neither expresses an opinion. Nobody discusses Aristotle’s views about friendship and whether it can outweigh justice.