PrepTest 151, Section 2, Question 2
Physician: A tax on saturated fat, which was(52 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(13 more words not shown)
- AA tax on(24 more words not shown)
- BIt is not(26 more words not shown)
- CBefore any law(15 more words not shown)
- DA law intended(18 more words not shown)
- EA tax on(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
People crossing the border to buy the food doesn't necessarily mean the tax has accomplished nothing.
Imagine wanting some cookies and now having to travel to another country to buy them at the old price. That extra hassle might discourage some purchases, even if other people still make the trip. We can't conclude from the shopping trips alone that the tax has no benefit. We also can't assume its benefits outweigh its costs; the physician hasn't given us that comparison.
What we’re looking for
My initial thought is that a defense could say discouraging consumption is worthwhile despite this inconvenience. But notice the precise conclusion: the tax shouldn't have been repealed so soon. The physician doesn't have to defend keeping it forever. We're looking for a principle that supports that criticism of the decision to repeal it after seven months.
Working the answers
- A
This sets a requirement for implementing a tax: high confidence that it will improve health. We aren't told that this requirement is met, and meeting a requirement for introduction wouldn't by itself settle when repeal is appropriate. A could make introducing a tax harder to justify; it doesn't supply a reason this repeal happened too soon.
- BCorrect
This takes a different route from my initial defense of discouraging purchases. It says we need at least a year to adequately judge the impact. The tax lasted only seven months, so it was repealed before that assessment could be made.
That supports the physician's complaint about timing without proving the tax ultimately would have worked. Waiting long enough to evaluate a policy and defending it permanently are different claims. B gives us a reason to think the government jumped the gun.
- C
Considering foreseeable harms before passing a law may be sensible, but it doesn't tell us whether this law was repealed too soon. We aren't told what the government considered before implementation. C concerns the care taken in the earlier decision, while the conclusion challenges the timing of the later repeal.
- D
We don't know that most people are evading the law; the example of cross-border shopping doesn't establish that proportion. And if D's condition were met, it would provide a reason to repeal, not a reason the repeal was premature. The absence of evidence that most people evade it also wouldn't itself establish that the tax should remain.
- E
This limits which foods should be taxed according to widespread beliefs about their healthfulness. We aren't told whether saturated-fat foods meet that description. Either way, E gives no reason seven months was too little time to judge this tax's impact.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.