#24 - Party spokesperson: The opposition party’s proposal to

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Avenging,

As Nikki noted, the claim is about the possibility that the tax refund plan can result in a net increase in spending to stimulate the province's economy. The stimulus outlines two scenarios that could result from this $600 million rebate. In the first, new taxes would recapture that money, erasing the benefit. In the second, dismissed workers will be short $600 million, erasing the purported benefit.

You are to weaken the argument by negating a necessary assumption.

As you noted, answer choice E does in fact show that a net increase in provincial spending is possible if there were an alternate scenario that would direct more money into the province AND be consistent with the tax rebate plan.

As Nikki describes, answer choice D involves a scenario completely inconsistent with the conclusion. If we take the rebate plan off the table, all bets are off. It is no longer relevant to the conclusion because we are only interested in information that tells us what happens when we do the tax rebate plan.

[avengingangel]

Thanks for the reply. I'm actually getting more confused. I now don't understand how answer E is consistent with the tax rebate plan? It seems like E also introduces a new scenario inconsistent with the conclusion: it seems like it's saying instead of the tax rebate plan, they can actually use your workers more efficiently (in place of doing the rebate plan), with the ultimate result of increasing in-province expenditures... can you please elaborate ??

I might not even understand the basis of this argument... I took "or else workers for the province would be dismissed" to mean that the province, once it (the government) gives back $600 mil to taxpayers, will not have enough money to pay it's own (government) workers and therefore they will be dismissed (laid off). So then, I understood "So either the province's taxpayers or its workers, who are also residents of the province, will have the $600 mil to spend" to mean that either the taxpayers will be refunded the money or it will "stay in" the province('s government) to then be decided by it's workers on how to spend it. Is that correct??

[Claire Horan]

It sounds like you are almost there to understanding this question. The party spokesperson's conclusion is that "there can be no resulting net increase in spending to stimulate the province’s economy." The party spokesperson comes to this conclusion by assuming that either the workers will get paid the $600 million (not decide how to spend it) OR the taxpayers will get the $600 million refunded to them. Any answer choice that posits a way for the workers to get paid and the taxpayers to get the refund will show that the conclusion does not follow.

You are correct that answer choice (E) introduces an entirely new scenario. This is a "weaken" question type, so you assume the information in each answer choice is true and apply it to the stimulus to see if the answer choice would weaken the argument in the stimulus (you might want to review this question type in one of the Powerscore books. Because answer choice (E)'s scenario would lead to the opposite of the conclusion reached in the stimulus, this is the correct answer.

[avengingangel]

But how does E address the refund plan?? It says nothing about the refund plan; it just says that they'll have the workers work harder, ultimately ending up saving $. So, that's like taking the refund plan off the table, which you all have said is completely irrelevant to the conclusion. How does E "posit a way for the workers to get paid and the taxpayers to get the refund?" Thanks!!

[Adam Tyson]

Remember the goal here, Angel, is to weaken the conclusion of the argument in the stimulus. The author argues that following the proposal cannot lead to a net increase in spending in the province, because either people get taxed to make up the $600m refund amount or else people get laid off and then don't have the money to spend.

Answer E shows an alternative that allows the province to refund the money and still get a net increase in spending. Instead of raising taxes or laying people off, just get more efficient and spend less money outside the province. If the province can save $600m outside the province, then it can refund that $600m to the people without raising taxes or letting anyone go.

The answer doesn't have to talk about the refund, it just has to show that there is another way to fund the proposal besides taxes or layoffs. See it now?

Hope that helped!

[avengingangel]

Oh, wow, YES, I finally do. Thanks, Adam. To be sure, E is saying, "hey, we actually can just use our workers more efficiently, resulting in saving $600 mil in out-of-province expenditures, so then we can refund tax-payers the same amount --and we won't have to add on extra taxes to make up for it because we've already made up for it through the efficient workers-- and then tax payers will spend that $$, resulting in a net increase in spending/economic stimulation. i bet you feel silly now, party spokesperson!! " ??

[adlindsey]

I don't mean to knit-pic, but since in letter E, the province keeps the workers, would that mean the refund goes to them? Because, in the stimulus, it either goes to the workers by keeping them employed (and they get the money to spend), or it goes to the taxpayers. And are we suppose to assume the workers will spend this inside the province?

Remember the goal here, Angel, is to weaken the conclusion of the argument in the stimulus. The author argues that following the proposal cannot lead to a net increase in spending in the province, because either people get taxed to make up the $600m refund amount or else people get laid off and then don't have the money to spend.

Answer E shows an alternative that allows the province to refund the money and still get a net increase in spending. Instead of raising taxes or laying people off, just get more efficient and spend less money outside the province. If the province can save $600m outside the province, then it can refund that $600m to the people without raising taxes or letting anyone go.

The answer doesn't have to talk about the refund, it just has to show that there is another way to fund the proposal besides taxes or layoffs. See it now?

Hope that helped!

[Adam Tyson]

Pick those nits, adlindsey! We want to be sure you understand, so pick away.

The refund goes to the taxpayers, at least some of whom work for the Province. The workers, who are residents, get to keep their paychecks, and presumably spend at least as much as they always have inside the Province. The taxpayers, who are all in the Province, and some of whom are also people who work for the Province, get the refund and presumably spend some of that in the Province, too. We don't have to assume that they will spend it inside the Province, but it allows for the possibility that they will do so. If they do, then there will be a net increase in spending inside the Province without having laid anyone off and without having raised any taxes.

We wanted to weaken the claim that there could be no net increase in in-Province spending, and we've shown that there can be. Mission accomplished!

[lsat_novice]

I was stuck between D and E, and I eliminated E because it refers to "out-of-province expenditures." This doesn't make sense to me...why would the province spend money outside the province?

It seems like sometimes incorrect answers can be eliminated because of little things like that...but sometimes eliminating answers for a nitpicky reason backfires (like this question)!

[Adam Tyson]

There could be a lot of reasons for a province spending money outside the province, lsat_novice! Maybe the province needs a new fire engine, and those are only manufactured and sold elsewhere? Maybe they don't generate enough electricity within their borders so they have to buy power from a neighboring province? Dealing more directly with the stimulus, which talks about the efficient use of workers, maybe they have to hire people from neighboring provinces to help repair roads, build bridges, collect and recycle waste, fight fires, answer 911 calls, rebuild after a storm or other disaster, etc., because the people they have within the province aren't able to do all that stuff themselves? That happens in the real world all the time!

More importantly, though, is that we shouldn't spend any time or mental effort asking ourselves why that might be the case or whether it makes sense. Instead, we should focus only on asking ourselves "if that is true (no matter how weird or ridiculous or unlikely it may seem), what impact would it have on the argument?" Forget about it making sense, and focus only on whether the answer does what you need it to do. The stem does say "if", after all, and that means it doesn't have to be true or even sensible. All we have to do is imagine it's true and then evaluate its impact.