PrepTest 149, Section 3, Question 16
The tax bill passed 2 years ago provides(55 more words not shown)
The argument's reasoning depends on(6 more words not shown)
- AIf Plastonica had(18 more words not shown)
- BPlastonica would not(15 more words not shown)
- CMost critics of(13 more words not shown)
- DIf Plastonica had(15 more words not shown)
- ECritics of the(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if Plastonica was going to open that factory anyway?
It could have planned the same factory and the same 75 jobs before the incentives existed, then happily accepted the benefit. In that case, the factory isn't evidence that the bill created those jobs. Receiving an incentive and being motivated by it are different things.
There's also a separate debate about tax revenue. Bringing in businesses might add revenue even if each gets a discount, but we'd need numbers to know. And creating jobs wouldn't automatically refute the critics: a policy could create jobs while reducing revenue. Our argument's claim here is that the bill created jobs, so that's the link to check.
What we’re looking for
For the required assumption, I'd predict that Plastonica wouldn't have opened this factory here without the incentives. Otherwise, the author is taking credit for something that would have happened anyway.
Working the answers
- A
The argument concerns jobs in this area. Plastonica could have opened a factory somewhere else without the incentives, yet been persuaded by the incentives to locate here instead. The author doesn't need to assume that no factory would have opened anywhere.
- BCorrect
Plastonica is the author's evidence that the bill created local jobs. If the company would have opened the same factory here without the incentives, this example wouldn't show that the bill caused those jobs. B supplies the needed connection. Without it, this example fails as support; that doesn't prove the bill created no jobs at any other business.
- C
The critics' stated concern is tax revenue, not future job creation. They could expect the bill to create more jobs and still think the loss of revenue makes it bad policy. The author's reasoning doesn't require most critics to deny those future jobs.
- D
Maybe Plastonica would have opened elsewhere; maybe it would have abandoned the project. Either possibility can fit the argument as long as the incentives are what brought this factory to this area. D unnecessarily commits us to one particular alternative.
- E
The critics could acknowledge jobs already created while objecting to reduced revenue. Those positions can coexist. The author needs a link between the incentives and Plastonica's decision, not an assumption that the critics deny every local job benefit.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.