- Mon Aug 08, 2016 6:40 pm
#27713
Hi, thanks for the question!
Answer choice A reads: "It ignores a difference in how the idea of forced work for another's purpose applies to the two cases."
Because the stimulus draws an analogy (between paying income tax and involuntary servitude), we can invalidate the argument by pointing out why it isn't a very good analogy. In other words, we can point out that the two ideas being analogized are actually very different from each other.
One way to approach this answer choice is to try to make the general wording make sense in a more specific way. So, read the answer choice and think to yourself, "If it ignored a difference, what would the difference be?"
The difference referred to in answer choice A has to come from your own mind, rather than the stimulus. We could formulate the difference in several ways (and this list is not exhaustive): 1) citizens consent to "labor for another's purpose," 2) citizens have representation and therefore a choice in the purpose, so it is not truly "another's purpose," and 3) citizens benefit from the taxes they pay. None of these are true of slaves or other forced laborers.
I want to stress that coming up with these reasons is not necessary, it just helps you verify that there is a difference between the two things being compared. In general, the way to argue with an analogy is to show why two things have an important difference that makes the comparison unconvincing.
I hope this helps!
-Claire