PrepTest 124, Section 2, Question 16
Editorialist: Some people propose that, to raise revenues(67 more words not shown)
Each of the following, if(7 more words not shown)
- AThe editorialist's country's(15 more words not shown)
- BHigher gasoline prices(13 more words not shown)
- CThe proposed tax(11 more words not shown)
- DHigher gasoline prices(11 more words not shown)
- EThe government would(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What about the benefits?
The editorialist lists reasons an energy tax could hurt: higher business costs, more expensive transportation, and fewer energy-production jobs. Let's grant those costs. Do they establish that the tax would do more harm than good? Only if we also consider the good.
Cleaner air or better environmental protection might make some added expense worthwhile. Imagine transportation costing a little more while producing a substantial environmental benefit. We would still have a tradeoff to evaluate, not an automatic reason to reject the tax.
And even the economic story might have another side. The proposal raises government revenue. Could that help with the deficit or pay for something useful? The editorialist hasn't weighed those possibilities against the costs.
What we’re looking for
This is a weaken EXCEPT question. Four choices should expose a benefit or reduce a claimed harm. We want the one that doesn't help challenge the conclusion about the overall balance.
Working the answers
- A
This identifies an economic benefit the editorialist left out: a smaller budget deficit. We are told that this benefits the economy, so we should accept it for the question. The tax could have economic costs and economic benefits. Adding the latter weakens a conclusion based entirely on the former.
- B
Less nonessential driving leads to a cleaner environment. That's the kind of benefit we were looking for. It doesn't make the financial costs disappear, but it gives us something favorable to weigh against them. Eliminate this weakener.
- CCorrect
Different tax increases don't, by themselves, tell us the proposal is better than the editorialist thinks. Suppose one energy source gets a 10 percent increase and another gets 20 percent. What benefit does that establish? None without more information about the consequences. C describes how the increases differ, leaving the claimed balance of harms and benefits unchallenged.
- D
Carpooling reduces individual transportation costs, which answers one of the editorialist's specific concerns. People may respond to higher gasoline prices by sharing the expense. This doesn't need to eliminate every family's added cost to weaken the argument; it supplies a reason the transportation burden may be smaller than the editorialist suggests.
- E
More jobs would be created than lost. That directly offsets the job-loss concern and adds a net employment benefit. We needn't decide whether this prediction sounds realistic outside the question: we're asked what follows if the answer is true. Given that information, counting only the lost energy jobs makes the proposal look worse than it is.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.