PrepTest 109, Section 4, Question 23
Party spokesperson: The opposition party's proposal to stimulate(104 more words not shown)
The spokesperson proceeds(1 more words not shown)
- Areinterpreting a term(7 more words not shown)
- Barguing that a(9 more words not shown)
- Ccasting doubt on(4 more words not shown)
- Ddrawing a distinction(6 more words not shown)
- Eseeking to show(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Where does the refund money come from?
At first, I might picture a government returning money left over in its budget. But that isn't the situation described. The spokesperson says the refund would create a shortfall, and the province has to balance its budget. On this account, giving taxpayers $600 million means either collecting that money through new taxes or cutting jobs to reduce spending.
Now the objection makes sense: don't count the taxpayers' new spending while ignoring the spending lost elsewhere. If the province takes the money back in taxes, that offsets the refund. If it lays off provincial workers, those residents lose income they otherwise could have spent. The spokesperson treats the plan as moving the same $600 million between groups, without increasing the total available for spending.
What we’re looking for
We could ask whether those are really the only ways to balance the budget or whether different uses of money have different effects. But this question asks how the spokesperson argues. The move is to take the proposal's claimed benefit and point to a cost that supposedly cancels it.
Working the answers
- A
The spokesperson doesn't change the meaning of “refund,” “spending,” or another central term. The challenge is to the refund's predicted effect once the budget consequences are included. Changing an assessment of a plan isn't the same as redefining a word.
- BCorrect
The predicted advantage is new spending by taxpayers who receive the refund. The accompanying disadvantage is spending lost through replacement taxes or reduced income for dismissed workers. The spokesperson argues that the latter offsets the former, leaving no net increase.
Both halves matter. Merely saying the plan has a drawback would be less precise. This argument specifically says the drawback cancels the benefit being claimed.
- C
We aren't told that the opponents are dishonest, selfish, or pursuing some hidden objective. The spokesperson attacks the economic reasoning behind their proposal. Criticizing what a plan would accomplish doesn't necessarily cast doubt on why its supporters propose it.
- D
The argument distinguishes groups who might have the money, but it doesn't base its conclusion on different kinds of economic activity. It treats the spending available to taxpayers and provincial workers as offsetting amounts in the overall calculation. The important comparison is gain versus loss, not one type of activity versus another.
- E
The spokesperson allows that taxpayers could be expected to spend the refunded money. The objection isn't that they'll refuse to spend it. It's that their spending would replace spending lost elsewhere, so it wouldn't create the promised net increase. E attacks a premise the spokesperson uses rather than disputes.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.