Self-study
A gas tax of one cent per gallon would raise one billion dollars per year at current consumption rates. █████ █ ███ ██ █████ █████ ███ ██████ █████ █████████ █████ █████ ███████ ███████ ███ █████ ██ █████ █ ███████ ███ ██ ████ ████ ███ ███████ ██████ ████████ ████ ███ █████ ████ ███ ██████████ █████████ ████ ███ █████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ████████████ █████ ███ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ████ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████████
Structure: Predicted Effect
The stimulus makes two predictions about the net effect of a policy decision. First, because a gas tax of one cent per gallon would raise one billion dollars a year at current consumption rates, the stimulus predicts that a fifty-cent-per-gallon tax would raise fifty billion dollars a year and thus help deal with the federal budget deficit. Second, the stimulus adds that there would be a drop in the demand for gasoline, which would be good for the environment and stop the country from relying too heavily on foreign oil.
Notable Flaws
The author assumes that since a tax of one cent per gallon would lead to revenue of one billion dollars a year, a tax of fifty cents per gallon would therefore lead to fifty times more revenue. This assumption that the revenue will neatly scale up assumes that "current rates of consumption" will stay the same even with a tax of fifty cents per gallon. This seems unlikely — it seems like, at a certain point, a high enough tax would push down rates of oil consumption. And the author grants this when she says that there would be a "drop in demand for gasoline," which is the basis for her second prediction. So the author's two predictions — that there would be fifty billion dollars in revenue, and that there would also be a drop in demand for gasoline — are actually contradictory.
5.
Which one of the following ████ ███████ ██████████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████████
a
The author cites ██████████ █████
Incorrect. The closest thing the author cites to specific "data" is the projection in the first sentence about revenue from a one-cent-per-gallon tax. But that's very relevant to the argument.
b
The author relies ██ █████████ ███████ ███████████ ████████
Incorrect. We have no reason to think the current consumption rates referenced by the author are incorrect, and we aren't given any specific "figures" for those rates.
c
The author makes ████████████ ████████████
Correct. The author's first prediction, that a fifty-cent-per-gallon tax would bring in fifty billion dollars of revenue, relies on the assumption that oil consumption rates stay the same — i.e., that demand for oil would not go down. The author's second prediction assumes that demand for oil will go down, which means the tax will not bring in fifty billion dollars of revenue. The author's two predictions about the net effect of this policy change can't both be correct.
d
The author mistakes ██ ██████ ███ █ ██████
Incorrect. Both things the author predicts — fifty billion dollars in revenue, and a drop in demand for gas — are clearly effects of adding a gas tax, not causes of a gas tax. The flaw in the argument is not that the author confuses causes and effects, but that the effects she predicts cannot both be true.
e
The author appeals ██ ██████████ ██████ ████ ███████
Incorrect. The author never makes any appeals to conscience or moral standards.