Economist: Currently, many countries rely primarily on taxing income to fund government expenditures. But taxing income does nothing to promote savings and investment. Taxing consumption, on the other hand, would encourage savings. The most important challenge facing these countries is improving their economies, and the only way to accomplish this is to increase their savings rates. Hence, _______.

Summary

Many countries primarily rely on taxing income to support government spending. Taxing income does not promote savings and investment. In contrast, taxing consumption would encourage saving. In these countries, the biggest challenge is improving their economies. The only way to accomplish this is to increase savings rates.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Hence, many countries should primarily tax consumption as opposed to income.

A
most governments should stop taxing savings and investment

This answer is unsupported. To say that most governments should take action is too strong. The stimulus is limited to “many” countries, not most countries.

B
the economies of countries will rapidly improve if their governments adopt tax policies that encourage savings and investment

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether these countries’ economies would improve rapidly. It could be the case that they improve slowly, or gradually.

C
in most countries taxes on consumption alone could raise adequate revenues to fund government expenditures

This answer is unsupported. To say that most countries could achieve this is too strong. The stimulus is limited to “many” countries, not most countries.

D
the tax laws of many countries should be revised to focus on taxing consumption rather than income

This answer is strongly supported. We know from the stimulus that taxing consumption encourages savings. Therefore, this would be a better strategy for improving savings rates than taxing income.

E
it is detrimental to the economic improvement of any country to continue to tax income

This answer is unsupported. To say that this is detrimental to any country is too strong. The stimulus is limited to “many” countries, not any country.


7 comments

Politician: Some proponents of unilateral nuclear arms reduction argue that it would encourage other countries to reduce their own nuclear arsenals, eventually leading to an international agreement on nuclear arms reduction. Our acting on the basis of this argument would be dangerous, because the argument ignores the countries presently on the verge of civil wars. These countries, many of which have nuclear capability, cannot be relied upon to conform to any international military policy.

Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
The politician concludes that it would be dangerous to follow the argument for unilateral arms reduction, since nuclearized countries on the verge of civil war can’t be relied on to reduce their nuclear arsenals in turn.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion makes a case against the politician’s country acting on unilateral arms reduction: “Our acting on the basis of this argument would be dangerous.”

A
Countries that are on the verge of civil wars are unlikely to agree to reduce either their nuclear arms or their conventional weapons.
This is a premise that supports the politician’s conclusion. Since countries on the verge of civil war are unlikely to reduce their arsenals, unilateral arms reduction wouldn’t achieve broad disarmament.
B
Unilateral nuclear arms reduction by the politician’s country would encourage all countries to reduce their nuclear arsenals.
This is a component of the reasoning that the politician argues against embracing. The politician believes there are risks that this line of reasoning doesn’t factor in.
C
Many countries cannot be relied upon to disclose the extent of their nuclear capability.
This doesn’t appear in the politician’s argument. The politician says many countries can’t be relied upon to conform to international military policy, but we don’t know anything about specifically disclosing their nuclear capability.
D
It is unlikely that an international agreement on nuclear disarmament will ever be achieved.
This doesn’t appear in the politician’s argument. The politician simply states that unilateral disarmament wouldn’t be wise at the present time.
E
It is risky for the politician’s country to unilaterally reduce nuclear arms in hopes of achieving an international agreement on arms reduction.
Since many countries wouldn’t follow international military policy, unilateral arms reduction wouldn’t achieve its aims. It’s risky to give up weapons when other countries aren’t doing the same.

5 comments