#27- Specific Reference, Must Be True, Expansion

[gingerale]

I've read through this thread and I'm still confused about how B is correct. I chose A, but didn't feel good about any of the answers. I thought that B was incorrect because the author of passage A provided that these flat tax systems are inherently less complex, making tax avoidance significantly more difficult. They even reference the flat tax system in Estonia, where there are "no schedule of rates, no deductions." I ruled out B based on this information in the text, as I thought the simplistic nature of the flat tax system would get rid of the loopholes and special deductions referenced in B and would have an easy retort to the author of A had they responded with B. Why is B correct over A?

[Adam Tyson]

The focus of the question stem has the answer for you, gingerale. We aren't looking to respond to the entire argument presented by Author A, but only to the last argument she made, which basically boiled down to "high earners are paying the same as lower earners anyway, so progressive taxes don't really work and we should switch to a flaw tax." Author B's response could be what answer B says, that the problem isn't that the tax is progressive, but just that it has too many loopholes. Don't scrap the progressive tax and switch to a flat tax, but just fix the loopholes!

[cd1010]

I ended up picking B, but flagged it because I was unsure. B says: "Existing tax codes allow tax avoidance by those with high incomes mainly because they contain loopholes and special deductions, not because they are graduated.". When I read this, I did feel like this would be a counter-argument for Author A. However, where I was getting confused was the part of the q "would be the most reasonable response for the author of passage B ". Because Author B didn't mention loopholes, I wasn't sure if I had enough evidence to say that author B would actually say this?

What I mean is, if the question were worded as a more normal weaken question to the argument of passage A, then I would have been more comfortable picking Answer choice B. But, I felt like I had to test whether author B would actually say Answer Choice B, and that one felt a little uncertain to me.

Thanks!

[Dana D]

Hey CD,

The author of Passage B doesn't use the word loophole, but passage B is arguing for graduated taxing. Passage A argues that graduated taxing allows people to avoid taxes - if the author for Passage B wanted to weaken this argument, they could offer answer choice (B) up in defense. It's fine that Passage B didn't ever mention loopholes - answer (B) is still the right answer because it attacks the last part of the argument in Passage A, as the question requests.

[miriamson07]

Hello all,

I came across a new type of question stem in PrepTest 72, Section 4, question 27. It is as follows: “which one of the following, if true, would be the most reasonable response for the author of passage B to make to the final argument of passage A?”

I am tempted to categorize this stem as a “weaken/strengthen” type question. However, I am not 100% certain how to interpret the phrase “would be the most reasonable response.” Are they referring to “reasonable” in terms of being the best at weakening/strengthening, or “reasonable” in terms of the author being likely to use the argument? I see these as two different things.

Thank you very much.

[Stephanie Oswalt]

Hello all,

I came across a new type of question stem in PrepTest 72, Section 4, question 27. It is as follows: “which one of the following, if true, would be the most reasonable response for the author of passage B to make to the final argument of passage A?”

I am tempted to categorize this stem as a “weaken/strengthen” type question. However, I am not 100% certain how to interpret the phrase “would be the most reasonable response.” Are they referring to “reasonable” in terms of being the best at weakening/strengthening, or “reasonable” in terms of the author being likely to use the argument? I see these as two different things.

Thank you very much.

Hi!

I have moved your post to the thread discussing this question. Please review the explanation on page 1 of this thread, as well as the discussion that follows, and let us know if that helps! Thanks!

[miriamson07]

Hello all,

I came across a new type of question stem in PrepTest 72, Section 4, question 27. It is as follows: “which one of the following, if true, would be the most reasonable response for the author of passage B to make to the final argument of passage A?”

I am tempted to categorize this stem as a “weaken/strengthen” type question. However, I am not 100% certain how to interpret the phrase “would be the most reasonable response.” Are they referring to “reasonable” in terms of being the best at weakening/strengthening, or “reasonable” in terms of the author being likely to use the argument? I see these as two different things.

Thank you very much.

Hi!

I have moved your post to the thread discussing this question. Please review the explanation on page 1 of this thread, as well as the discussion that follows, and let us know if that helps! Thanks!

Hi Stephanie,

Thank you for your response! I have learned from the page you provided me that this is a "Specific Reference, Must Be True, Expansion." I did not know that this type of categorization has existed; perhaps because I haven't read the book that this categorization has been derived from.

I did some research and found that "expansion" type questions can ask to extrapolate 1 of 3 things:
1. where the passage was drawn from or how it could be titled
2. What sentence or idea should come before the passage
3. what sentence or idea could follow the passage

However, the original question we were discussing doesn't exactly ask for any of these 3. Perhaps there is a broader definition for "expansion" type questions than the above definition? If so, I'd guess that "expansion" questions ask you to infer something that isn't directly given in the passage, thus requiring for us to use "expansive" thinking.

Thanks so much.

[Adam Tyson]

I think another way to think of Expansion questions, miriamson07, is simply that they ask us for something more that the author might say. They expand on the text and add to it in some way.

In this case, the response from author B could also be approached as a Weaken question, because the overall relationship between the passages is one of general disagreement. Author A supports a flat tax and defends it against criticism, while author B defends progressive taxes and criticizes flat tax proposals. Given that author B has objected to flat taxes, I think it makes sense to frame your prephrase to this question as something that would weaken author A's argument about progressive tax codes being so complex that they allow high income earners to reduce the amount they pay. After all, if author B is arguing against the position taken by author A, their most reasonable response would be to undermine that criticism! Answer B does that by saying that the problem is caused by the progressive nature of the code, but by the loopholes and special deductions. The implication is that you can fix the code by changing those aspects while still maintaining the progressive nature of the code,

One final note: don't worry too much about identifying the type of question or putting a label on it. Just ask yourself what the question wants you to do, and then prephrase something that does that! There's a perfectly reasonable argument to be made that this should be called a Weaken question, but it's not important what you call it, only that you understand what you should do about it.

[miriamson07]

I think another way to think of Expansion questions, miriamson07, is simply that they ask us for something more that the author might say. They expand on the text and add to it in some way.

In this case, the response from author B could also be approached as a Weaken question, because the overall relationship between the passages is one of general disagreement. Author A supports a flat tax and defends it against criticism, while author B defends progressive taxes and criticizes flat tax proposals. Given that author B has objected to flat taxes, I think it makes sense to frame your prephrase to this question as something that would weaken author A's argument about progressive tax codes being so complex that they allow high income earners to reduce the amount they pay. After all, if author B is arguing against the position taken by author A, their most reasonable response would be to undermine that criticism! Answer B does that by saying that the problem is caused by the progressive nature of the code, but by the loopholes and special deductions. The implication is that you can fix the code by changing those aspects while still maintaining the progressive nature of the code,

One final note: don't worry too much about identifying the type of question or putting a label on it. Just ask yourself what the question wants you to do, and then prephrase something that does that! There's a perfectly reasonable argument to be made that this should be called a Weaken question, but it's not important what you call it, only that you understand what you should do about it.

Thank you so much! Your answer makes a lot of sense.