- Fri Jul 26, 2024 7:50 pm
#107895
Hi kavyakarthic!
To your question, yes, answer choice (A) is incorrect because it's not an assumption that is required by this argument.
The author concludes that the tax bill at issue "clearly ... has already created many jobs in this area." Why does the author conclude this? The stimulus goes on to explain that Plastonica qualified for incentives and opened a factory in the area. This seems to assume that the tax bill's incentives caused Plastonica to open a factor in the area. But it's possible that the company would have done so anyways, independent of the bill.
We can confirm that (B) is correct by applying the Assumption Negation technique. Negated, answer choice (B) could be rephrased as, "Plastonica would have opened the plastics factory in the area even if there had not been any of the tax bill's incentives." This tracks what we prephrased. If this were true, it'd make the causal argument fall apart that the bill and its incentives created jobs in the area just because Plastonica created a factory in the area.
By contrast, answer choice (A) doesn't get to that causal relationship. We need something about jobs in the area being caused by the tax bill's incentives, something that allows the conclusion to follow based on the data point given about Plastonica.
