Top Law Schools

17. Politician: All nations that place a high tax on income produce thereby a negative incentive for technological innovation, and all nations in which technological innovation is hampered inevitably fall behind in the international arms race. those nations that, through historical accident or the foolishness of their political leadership, wind up in a strategically disadvantageous position are destined to lose their voice in world affairs. so id a nation wants to maintain its value system and way of life, it must not allow its highest tax bracket to exceed 30 percent of income.

each of the following, if true, weakens the politician's argument EXCEPT:
(A) the top level taxation must reach 45% before taxation begins to deter inventors and industrialists from introducing new technologies and industries
(B) Making a great deal of money is an insignificant factor in driving technological innovation

(E) Allowing one's country to lose its technological edge, especially as concerns weaponry, would eb foolish rather than merely a historical accident


----I at first thought that B played no effect in the argument since the premise in the stimulus was about the rate of tax on income hampering the technological innovation rather than total income itself hampering it.

Can anyone explain more clearly why B would weaken the argument?

Thanks.

17. Politician: All nations that place a high tax on income produce thereby a negative incentive for technological innovation,
and all nations in which technological innovation is hampered inevitably fall behind in the international arms race.
those nations that, through historical accident or the foolishness of their political leadership,
wind up in a strategically disadvantageous position are destined to lose their voice in world affairs.
so id a nation wants to maintain its value system and way of life,
it must not allow its highest tax bracket to exceed 30 percent of income

-> here is my answer.

if the tax is high, its bad for tech.
when its bad for tech, the nation falls behind.
whatever the reason may be, those who have fallen behind, lose their voice.

so if a nation want to do good, the tax cant exceed 30% of income.

hmmm quite wordy and mouthful... the politician is saying high tax is bad so lets not make it go over 30% of income.

the assumption is tax not exceeding that number is not too high so that it hurts technology and blah blah blah
anything that attacks this assumption will weaken the argument.

what if they set the tax rate as recommanded but a war brake out and the nation collapse?
what if high tax rate is actually good by making the treasury fat?
etc

B weakens the argument because the politician is talking about income tax.
if you make a great deal of money than you pay more income tax.
if paying more income tax is not important for technology then why is the politician even arguing about
income tax??? B is saying it doesnt matter how much you pay for income tax, its not important for the technology anyway.
If this is accepted, all the chain of logic falls apart.