Party spokesperson: Conclusion The opposition party's proposal to stimulate economic activity in the province by refunding $600 million in provincial taxes to taxpayers, who could be expected to spend the money, envisions an illusory benefit. █████ ███ ██████████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ ██ ██ ████████ ██████ ███ █████ █████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ █████ ██ █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ███ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███ █████ ███ ██ ██ █████████ ███ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ █████████ ███ ██████████ ████████
The opposition party wants to jump-start the province's economy by refunding $600 million in taxes to taxpayers, who would then go out and spend it. The spokesperson says that benefit is illusory, meaning the refund will not actually grow spending in the province.
Here is the reasoning. The province's budget has to stay balanced, so handing out $600 million means the province has to come up with $600 million somewhere else. The spokesperson sees only two ways to do that: raise new taxes, which just takes the refund back from taxpayers, or dismiss province workers, who are also residents. Either way, the $600 million ends up coming out of the pockets of people who live in the province. So whoever holds the money in the end, taxpayers or dismissed workers, the province as a whole is no richer, and total spending does not go up.
The spokesperson proceeds by
reinterpreting a term ████ ██ ███████ ██ ██ ████████ ████████
The spokesperson never redefines a term from the opposition's argument. Nothing like "stimulate" or "benefit" gets a new meaning. The proposal is taken on its own terms, and the spokesperson simply argues that the benefit nets to zero.
arguing that a █████████ █████████ █████ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ████████████ ████████████
This describes the spokesperson's reasoning. The predicted advantage is the economic boost from the refund, and the spokesperson argues it is offset by an accompanying disadvantage. To fund the refund while keeping the budget balanced, the province must raise new taxes or dismiss workers, which pulls the same $600 million back out of residents. The benefit and the cost cancel each other out, so there is no net increase in spending.
casting doubt on ███ ███████ ██ █████████
The spokesperson says nothing about why the opposition is making the proposal. The attack is on whether the refund actually works, not on the opponents' intentions or honesty. Since no motive is questioned, this does not match what the spokesperson does.
drawing a distinction ███████ █████████ █████ ██ ████████ ████████
The spokesperson does not sort spending into different types. The argument tracks a single total, $600 million going out and $600 million coming back, without separating one kind of economic activity from another.
seeking to show ████ ███ ██████████ ████ █████████ █████ █████ █████ ████ █████ ██ ████████ ██ ████ ██ ███████
The spokesperson actually grants that the money would be spent. He acknowledges that whoever ends up with it will spend it. But since the government will have to levy new taxes or fire some workers, there will still be no net increase in spending. So the spokesperson never treats the assumption that people would spend the refund as doubtful.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnosticWant to know why the right answer is right?
7Sage membership unlocks explanations of every question. Every answer choice. On every official PrepTest. Start with a free account.
By signing up you agree to our
terms of service.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Service
apply.