Self-paced
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. █████ ███ ██████████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ ██ ██ ████████ ██████ ███ █████ █████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ █████ ██ █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ███ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███ █████ ███ ██ ██ █████████ ███ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ █████████ ███ ██████████ ████████
Summarize Argument
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.
24.
The conclusion about whether there █████ ██ █ █████████ ███ ████████ ██ ████████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ███
a
taxpayers of the ████████ █████ █████ ███████ ███ ████████ ██ █████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ ████████ ██ ████
This supports the spokesperson rather than weakening the conclusion. If taxpayers spend at least half of the refund outside the province, that is money leaving the local economy, which makes a net increase in spending within the province even less likely. The conclusion is about spending inside the province, so money flowing out of it only reinforces the claim that the refund will not stimulate the province's economy.
b
taxpayers of the ████████ █████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ████████ ██████ ███ ████ ██████ ████ ██ █ ████ ███
How the refund is delivered does not touch the logic. Whether taxpayers get the $600 million in one lump sum or spread across the year, the total is still $600 million, and the province still has to find that same amount to keep the budget balanced. The argument runs entirely on the overall amount, not the timing, so paying it out in installments changes nothing about the need for new taxes or layoffs.
c
province could assess ███ █████ ██ █ ███ ████ █████ █████ ████████ █████████
How taxpayers feel about new taxes has no bearing on the argument. The spokesperson's reasoning is about the money: refund $600 million, and the province must recover $600 million. Collecting new taxes in a way that keeps taxpayers happy does not change that they would still be paying the money back, which is what kills the net increase. If (C) tempts you, you are probably imagining that anger somehow changes how much people spend, but the argument makes no such connection and neither does the answer.
d
province could, instead ██ █████████ ███ ██████ █████████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███ ████ ███████ ███ ████████████ ████████ ████████ ████ ██████ ███ ████████
This might be tempting, but it fails because it doesn't the spokesperson's claim about the refund proposal. (D) describes the province skipping the refund entirely and spending the $600 million on construction projects instead. That might well increase spending, but it is a different proposal. The spokesperson's conclusion is specifically that the refund will not produce a net increase, and showing that some other use of the money would work does not contradict that. The author never claimed the refund was the only way to stimulate the economy, just that this particular refund would not. To weaken the argument you have to show that the refund itself could lead to more spending, and (D) changes the subject to a non-refund alternative.
e
province could keep ███ ███████ ███ ███ ████ ████ ████████████ ████ █ █████████ ███████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████████████ ████████████
This supplies a third way to cover the $600 million. The whole argument depends on the money being recouped from province residents, through new taxes or by firing workers. (E) says the province could instead keep its workers and, by using them more effectively, save $600 million it currently spends outside the province. That money was not circulating in the local economy to begin with, so cutting it lets the province balance its budget without taxing residents or laying anyone off. Now the taxpayers keep the full refund to spend inside the province, and that's how there could be a net increase in spending.