#19 - Fares on the city-run public buses in Greenville are

[g22694]

Hi! Thank you all for your explanations thus far. I’m still having some trouble with answer D). I understand that these voters’ preferences regarding tax increases are irrelevant. However, nested in this answer choice (although certainly not the “thrust” of it) is the fact that (at least) some voters benefit from the low bus fares. Assuming that at least some of these voters are city taxpayers, doesn’t this mean that raising bus fares would make at least some city taxpayers worse off, by taking away a benefit that they currently have? This seems to weaken the argument in the same way that A does, for instance.

Is the problem that this fact about voter benefit is not the “central claim” of answer D? Or that weakening via D requires the assumption that at least some of these voters are taxpayers? Or something else?

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

The problem with answer D, g22694, is that it fails to address the argument, which is only about raising bus fares. There is no argument being made about raising local taxes! An answer that only deals with local taxes cannot have any impact, either positive or negative, on an argument that is only about whether to raise bus fares.

By analogy, imagine that I was making an argument for raising the price of toilet paper. You could not weaken that argument by arguing about opposition to higher prices for gasoline, could you? Answer D is just as disconnected from the argument in the stimulus as that argument would be, because the two issues being discussed are not the same issue.

[Julien]

I realize perhaps one other person may have asked this question, but I think that the way they described the question could have been clearer and/or the PowerScore instructor did not quite understand what the nature of the issue was.

In regard to answer choice (E), I spent a good deal of time during my blind review going back and forth between (D) and (E). I chose (D) during the actual practice section, however, I chose (E) during my blind review. I recognized that the arguments of the councilors in the stimulus (viz. the "some," who are advocating for fare increases) were primarily targeting those not paying taxes and I also realize that the individuals referred to in (D) are simply voters and that their opposition to a tax increase is irrelevant to the argument. However, to vote in the city, it seems reasonable/a warranted assumption to say that if they are individuals capable of voting in the city, they are likely residents of the city. Thus, they would be harmed, financially speaking, by a fare increase. Additionally, argument of the councilors in favor of a fare increase says that taxes should PRIMARILY benefit those who pay them. The way I read this is, primarily doesn't necessarily mean always and like answer choice (C), which involves individuals that are tax exempt but are still nonetheless recognized as being individuals should be able to take advantage of city-run services despite not paying taxes. Why? Because they're poor? Well, that's one of the reasons. However, that can't be the only reason, because if it were, then why wouldn't the City of Greensville have a moral duty to provide their city services to any and all individuals that cross into their lands? It's also because of the fact that these poorer individuals are residents of Greenseville. Similarly, the "voters" are presumably the voters of Greensville, i.e., they live in Greensville, and so, they too, while not being the primary intended beneficaries of city services, why should we conclude that the term "primarily" rules them out?


Which brings me to answer choice (E). Answer choice (E) states, "Those who commute to Greeneville for work AND (earn wages above the nationally mandated minimum) all pay 5% of city taxes."

I can't say for certain, but I swear that I've seen numerous questions that try to trick us into assuming that someone or something exists because its given as a possibility of existence. How can we know and therefore rule out the possibility that there are no individuals who commute to Greenville for work who make above the nationally mandated minimum wage? How is it not entirely possible that all the people who commute to Greenville for work are working the bare minimum amount? I suppose that if this were true, this may strengthen the councilor's argument as it shows that they are indeed not paying the taxes of the city and yet, deriving benefit from the use of city services. However, even if this is true, how can we rule out (D) with confidence?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Julien,

As for answer D, the fact that many of the city voters benefit from low transit fares doesn't imply that the taxes are being used primarily to benefit the people paying them because we also know that many people benefitting from the low fares commute from outside the city. "Many" doesn't imply "most," so we really have no idea what proportion of the people getting the low bus fares actually pay city taxes based on the argument. The gist of the city councilors argument is that enough people getting the benefit of the low bus fares are from out-of-town (and thus not paying city taxes) that the taxes should be used elsewhere.

The fact that city voters are strongly opposed to increasing local taxes is irrelevant as the proposal does not raise city taxes.

As for answer E, the very fact that there is a city tax on workers who commute and earn wages above the nationally mandated minimum is enough to weaken the argument even in the (seemingly very unlikely) event that none of the many commuters earns that minimum wage because the original argument was assuming that these commuters paid no city taxes, and this suggests they likely do pay some city taxes.

[jschmanski]

Hello,

I am really struggling with understanding how to weaken this argument. Can we restate the conclusion and the possible approaches to weakening the argument?

Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

The stimulus describes a situation, jschmanski, and an argument about that situation made by some city councillors. Those city councillors concluded that bus fares should be raised. Their premises are:

1. Taxes are subsidizing the bus service
2. Many people who live outside the city use the bus to commute to work in the city
3. Taxes should benefit the people who pay the taxes

So it seems they are assuming that the people who don't live in the city are not paying city taxes, and therefore should not be getting the benefits of low bus fares subsidized by those taxes.

To weaken the argument, you could take a few approaches:

1. Attack that assumption. What if those people ARE paying taxes to the city, even though they don't live there?
2. Bring up possible benefits to the city of continuing to subsidize the bus fares. That's basically "even though we may be using taxes to benefit people who don't pay them, we're still getting something good from doing so."
3. Point out possible negatives of raising the bus fares. That's essentially "but if we raise the fares, we will do some harm that's worse than the harm of subsidizing them."

Most of the answers to this question fit into that third category, one is in the first category, and the right answer - the exception - doesn't do any of these things.