PrepTest 111, Section 4, Question 17
Politician: All nations that place a high tax(84 more words not shown)
Each of the following, if(6 more words not shown)
- AThe top level(20 more words not shown)
- BMaking a great(11 more words not shown)
- CFalling behind in(14 more words not shown)
- DThose nations that(21 more words not shown)
- EAllowing one's country(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
How did we get from income taxes to losing our way of life?
The politician offers several links, but we shouldn't fill in the missing ones. Suppose higher taxes make innovation less financially rewarding and reduced innovation makes a country fall behind in the arms race. Does falling behind automatically put the country at a strategic disadvantage? Perhaps a country with weaker weapons still has strong allies, wealth, or favorable geography. Those are possible advantages the argument hasn't ruled out.
There's another gap at the end. Losing a voice in world affairs isn't obviously the same as losing a value system or way of life. A country might have less influence over other countries while its people continue living according to their own values.
And where did 30 percent come from? The premise concerns high taxes. We haven't been told that a rate just above 30 percent counts as high enough to discourage innovation. What if that doesn't happen until 70 percent?
What we’re looking for
This is a weaken EXCEPT question. Four choices will undermine the argument; we want the remaining one. We've already identified three places to attack: the tax threshold, the move from the arms race to strategic disadvantage, and the move from international influence to a way of life.
Working the answers
- A
This attacks the unexplained 30 percent limit. If taxes don't start deterring innovation until 45 percent, a country could raise its top rate above 30 percent without triggering the problem the politician describes. That weakens the claimed need to stay at or below 30 percent, so A isn't the exception.
- B
The argument relies on taxes discouraging innovation by reducing the incentive to earn money. If making a great deal of money is an insignificant driver of innovation, that proposed connection becomes less convincing. Innovators could continue for other reasons. We don't need to claim that nobody ever cares about money; B weakens the importance of the incentive on which this argument relies.
- C
This is our first gap. Falling behind in the arms race doesn't necessarily mean falling into a strategically worse position. Other advantages could matter. C breaks the connection the politician needs to move from hampered innovation to the threatened loss of international influence.
- D
This is the gap near the conclusion. Even if a country loses influence, its values and way of life might remain intact. The politician needs to connect those outcomes to establish that protecting the latter requires avoiding the former. D tells us that the connection isn't guaranteed.
- ECorrect
Calling the loss of a technological edge foolish doesn't challenge any of the missing connections. The politician already discusses strategic disadvantage caused either by foolish leadership or by historical accident. E puts this conduct in the foolishness category rather than the accident category.
It doesn't tell us that 30 percent is the wrong tax threshold, that a weaker military can coexist with a good strategic position, or that lost influence can leave a way of life intact. Unlike the other four choices, E gives us no reason to reject the politician's reasoning.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.