LR Drill Set 10, Question 1
Politician: Income taxes are used by governments not(69 more words not shown)
The politician's conclusion follows logically(8 more words not shown)
- AGovernment policies are(13 more words not shown)
- BNot all of(16 more words not shown)
- CIt is not(19 more words not shown)
- DSome people do(15 more words not shown)
- EIf giving tax(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Someone resents a tax break. Does that make the tax break unfair?
I can see why the politician expects resentment. If parents receive an exemption, a person without children might ask why that person gets no comparable break. People can disagree about which groups deserve an advantage, especially without widely recognized criteria. The passage says even an exemption granted only to deserving groups can produce ill will among those left out.
But resentment and unfairness aren't the same thing. A person could dislike a policy that is fairly applied. The politician needs a rule connecting people's reaction to the policy's fairness before concluding that fairness requires refusing these group exemptions.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for an assumption that makes the conclusion follow. One way to supply that connection is to say a policy cannot be fair if it creates ill will in any group. Then these exemptions, which we are told create ill will, fail the fairness test. We don't have to agree that this is a sensible standard for government. We need it to complete this particular argument.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
A fair government policy must avoid causing any group ill will. The exemptions described cause ill will among the groups that don't receive them. They therefore fail a requirement for fairness under A's rule.
That completes the step the politician left unstated: from a reaction to the exemptions to the conclusion that governments cannot grant them and still be fair. The rule is broad, but a broad rule can be enough to establish the requested conclusion.
- B
Government goals could conflict without establishing that these exemptions are unfair. B doesn't identify a rule for fairness or tell us why resentment disqualifies a policy. It leaves the essential step from the premises to the conclusion untouched.
- C
This points against the politician's recommendation. It says denying a deserving group an exemption because others resent it is unfair. The politician wants to prohibit group exemptions to avoid that resentment. C would give us a reason to question that approach, not establish that it is required for fairness.
- D
Some people can believe a group doesn't deserve its exemption without that belief determining whether the policy is fair. The passage already gives us disagreement and ill will. Another fact about people's opinions doesn't supply the missing rule that turns those opinions into a verdict on fairness.
- E
We aren't told the exemptions create economic inefficiency, so we don't even know whether this rule applies. And the rule concludes that an exemption is undesirable, not that it is unfair. A policy might be undesirable for one reason while still fair. E misses both the stated starting point and the conclusion we need.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 12, Question 4Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 13, Question 1Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 3, Question 7Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 4, Question 7Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 5, Question 8Sufficient Assumption
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.