- Posts: 6
- Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2019 3:49 am
So I am just really lost on why the right answer here was B instead of A. Can anyone explain why B is right and A is wrong?
When looking at the question, I focused primarily on the last two sentences of passage A (kinda treated those last two sentences as a LR question).
As a result, A looked like it weakened the argument passage A gives in these last two sentences because it created a reason for the phenomena (of rich people usually paying about the same under progressive tax as they would under flat tax) to be surprising (and thus less "unsurprising").
In addition, I just didn't see how B weakens the idea that this phenomena was "unsurprising", and as a result, I thought B was incorrect.
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2020 10:32 pm
Passage A is confusing two issues. There is a “flat” tax, and a “simplified” tax. Their final argument is the result of a simplified tax, but the author uses it to support a flat tax. The author of passage B can counter that a progressive tax system could be simplified but not flat.
C, D and E are not even things the author of passage B would agree with. We want to support the author of passage B!
A. This is a bad response. It’s always possible for people to cheat the tax system. The question is whether a flat tax system reduces the amount of cheating.
B. CORRECT. This answer is saying that loopholes and deductions are ways the rich can avoid taxes. A tax system could reduce deductions but remain progressive. The advantages described by the author of passage B come mainly from getting rid of deductions, not from flatness.
C. This is a faulty argument. Obviously, people at all levels can cheat. But it’s definitely possible that rich people cheat more. Also, why would the author of passage B say this? They’re arguing we should tax rich people more! They’re not in the business of defending rich people.
D. So? It doesn’t matter what taxpayers believe. We don’t care what people believe. We care about what’s true. Beliefs can be wrong.
E. This is way out of left field. The author of passage B is making an argument about income tax, and they never mention consumption taxes. So I don’t know why they would bring consumption taxes up now.
Growing firm seeks Senior Level Tax Attorney. Qualified candidates possess strong knowledge of tax laws and... read more
Growing firm seeks Entry Level Tax Attorney. Qualified candidates possess strong knowledge of tax laws and ... read more
Associate Attorney WMR Immigration Law Group seeks an attorney licensed in the State of Maryland and profic... read more