#16 - The tax bill passed 2 years ago provides substantial

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below! Thank you!

[claudiagarin]

Hi there, I answered E because I thought this was an assumption on which the counter argument to the critics argument is based on. Is the main argument of the stimulus that the tax bill is the reason why Plastonica opened up the factory? Thanks

[tomthomse@gmail.com]

Hello, I answered E also, can you please explain this question? Thanks!

[Frank Peter]

Hi Claudia,

You're exactly right that the main argument of the stimulus is that the tax bill is the reason why Plastonica opened up the factory, and that's the part of the argument we want to address. This is cause and effect reasoning - the argument is trying to establish that it was in fact the tax bill the created this economic activity. It is pretty easy to attack cause and effect arguments - for example, if we can make a plausible counter-argument for a potential alternate cause leading to the effect, this will weaken the argument. In this case, we should try to think about why Plastonica opened the factory and created those jobs. If there was some reason other than tax incentives that caused them to open the factory, then the main argument falls apart. (A) works because it strengthens this aspect of the main argument - it shows that it was probably the tax breaks that caused them to open the factory, since without them they wouldn't have opened the factory at all.

This is essentially a Defender assumption. It shows why a potential problem with the argument actually isn't a problem at all. (E) doesn't work because it's not identifying an issue that our main argument depends upon.

[racoonprinter]

I am confused about what role these sentences in the stimulus play: "Critics say the bill reduces the government’s tax revenues. Yet clearly it has already created many jobs in this area." Were these sentences included just to throw us off? Because of these sentences, I thought that the correct answer choice would have to include something about the critics of the tax bill.

[KelseyWoods]

Hi racoonprinter!

Those two middle sentences basically make up the conclusion of the author's argument--so they play a pretty big role! Usually when an author includes a sentence like "critics say" or "some people say" or really any variation where the author is telling us what some other person or group of people say, the author is going to argue against whatever "some people say." Here, the critics say the tax bill reduces the government's tax revenues. Our author counters the critics of the tax bill by arguing that the tax bill has created many jobs. The last sentence is support for the author's conclusion that the tax bill created jobs.

It's crucial in an Assumption question to accurately identify the conclusion of the argument (the conclusion here is that the tax bill has created jobs). Phrases like "some people say" or "critics say" can help you identify the author's conclusion because they usually set up an opposing viewpoint that the author is going to argue against. The argument is not dependent on the critic's viewpoint so you don't need an answer choice that addresses the critics. But you do need to know what the author's conclusion is so that you can find an answer choice that is necessary to the author's conclusion. The author argues against the critics of the bill by saying that the tax bill has created jobs. So we are looking for something necessary to the conclusion that the tax bill has created jobs. Answer choice (B) provides us with this because it says that Plastonica would not have opened the factory had it not been for the tax bill. If we use the Assumption Negation Technique and negate this answer choice to say that Plastonica would have opened the factory even without the tax bill, that would attack the argument that the tax bill created jobs (because the factory would have opened whether the tax bill was there or not). Therefore, it is necessary for the argument and is the correct answer.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[dimi.wassef@yahoo.com]

Can someone explain why C is wrong please?

[Robert Carroll]

dimi.wassef,

The conclusion is that the bill has created many new jobs. No assumption about what critics have said is necessary for that. Some critics are wrong in the stimulus, sure, but it's not as if the author's argument depended on what critics thought. Imagine we weren't told what the critics thought, but the author's conclusion was still that the bill created many new jobs. That wouldn't have any impact on the premises or the strength of the conclusion. So really, any opinions of the critics are irrelevant to the argument.

Robert Carroll

[AnaSol]

Hi,

Can you please share the thought process to identify the conclusion in the stimulus? First sentence? Last sentence? Combination of ideas?

I understand the rest of the explanation to get to the answer choices, but I'm struggling with identifying or figuring out the conclusion.

Thanks!

[Dana D]

Hi Ana,

If you're struggling to identify conclusion/premesis, try starting with whatever your guess is for the conclusion. Pull that idea out, and then ask yourself, what premesis support this idea? If it really is the conclusion, you should be able to find support for it and identify the argument structure. If you're incorrect, this should help you identify what role this idea is actually playing and the true conclusion.

For example, if we believe that the first sentence is the conclusion and pull that out, we are saying the conclusion is that "The tax bill passed 2 years ago provides substantial incentives for businesses that move to this area and hire 50 or more employees."

Now we have to ask - what information are we given to support this idea?

The other two sentences of the stimulus are " Critics say the bill reduces the government’s tax revenues. Yet clearly it has already created many jobs in this area. Last year, Plastonica qualified for incentives under the bill by opening a new plastics factory here that hired 75 employees". The first sentence introduces an argument against the bill, while the second sentence introduces a positive for the bill (it has created jobs) and an example of a company that qualified for incentives and hired 50 or more employees (which provides support for the conclusion sentence).

We can clearly see the structure of the argument this way - the stimulus is a conclusion, followed by an argument against the conclusion, followed by a premise and an example that supports that premise.

Now lets say you incorrectly identified the conclusion as the last sentence in the stimulus "Last year, Plastonica qualified for incentives under the bill by opening a new plastics factory here that hired 75 employees."

You would have struggled to find premises that support this idea. Looking at the other sentences left in the stimulus you have:

- Critics say the bill reduces the government’s tax revenues.
- Yet clearly it has already created many jobs in this area.
- The tax bill passed 2 years ago provides substantial incentives for businesses that move to this area and hire 50 or more employees.

Looking at these 3 remaining ideas, are they talking about Plastonica or building support for our conclusion sentence? No. They're talking about the tax bill - that's a good indicator that this example about Plastonica cannot be the conclusion or 'main point' of the stimulus' argument. We can see that this Plastonica information is really just an example of a company taking advantage of this tax bill that the rest of the stimulus is concerned with.