Q17 - politician: all nations that place a high tax

[ericha3535]

could someone go over this?

[maryadkins]

We have 3 premises here:

(1) Nations that place high tax on income --> negative incent for Tech Innov

(2) Nations where Tech Innov is hampered --> fall behind in IAR (international arms race)

(3) Nations who are strat disadv b/c of foolishness or accident --> lose voice in world affairs

Conclusion: Nation that wants to maintain value system --> can't tax highest bracket at more than 30%

There are a lot of term shifts here, and we're looking for one answer choice that doesn't weaken it. So four answer choices are probably going to point out some of these term shifts. Let's look for that.

(A) bites at the connection between the conclusion--30% income tax limit--and the premise that high taxation deters innovation. To deter innovation, we'd have to tax at a higher rate. Weakens! Out.

(B) suggests income isn't why people are technologically innovative, which would mean even if taxing people more creates a "negative incentive" to be innovative, it doesn't really matter. People aren't doing it for the money anyway. Weakens = Out.

(C) notes the term shift between Premises (2) and (3). Nice. Out!

(D) notes the term shift between Premise (3) and the conclusion. Nice. Out!

(E) Ah! This is it. Whether something is foolish or a historical accident doesn't matter. Premise (3) tells us that either way, a strategic disadvantage leads to losing a voice in world affairs. In fact, if losing a technological advantage is foolish as (E) tells us, that actually helps link Premise (2) to Premise (3).

Tough question. I hope this helps.

[wj097]

Though I do get why the correct answer has to be (e), I still don't get why (b) is a weakener.
Even though the money is not a big matter for tech innovation, the premise holds the fact that "all nations that place a high tax on income produce thereby a negative incentive for tech innovation".
and we learned that we're not supposed to attack the fact in the stimulus.

I guess your'e trying to say that since the $ is not a big deal here, who cares that the tech innovation is hampered when the tax is high.

BUT even if the significance of the tax is reduced, as said the fact is still holding, and everything constituting this stimulus is pure ifs and thens, not what actually happened.

[lhermary]

Could someone go into more detail as to why E is right?

Thanks

[boy5237]

It's easier to see if you see this whole thing as one big conditional statement.

High Tax -> ~Technology innovation
~Technology innovation -> Behind arm race
historical or foolishness -> Lose voice*
---
Maintain high value -> ~High Tax (30%)

*I equated his/foolishness with "behind arm race" because historical foolishness can cause one to be behind arm race... but i know it's a stretch....

But we know for sure that lose voice isn't equal to maintaining high value. Thus, the argument makes an assumption that
Maintain high value -> ~lose voice.

A) it directly contradicts the conclusion, saying that 45% is what will trigger this whole conditional statement not 30%.

B) It weakens the idea that money does not play a big role in technological innovation, thus the logical force of the argument is undermined.

C) It directly contradicts the 3rd premise up there.

D) This attacks the assumption.

E) Now, this does not weaken anything because the argument allows any one of two things (foolish or historical accident) to trigger the conditional statement. It really does not matter which one. But this answer choice is saying that one of them is more correct than the other. Great. So... is argument weakened?

Analogy:

Having a six pack or money is destined to attract woman.

E) Having six pack is more important than money.

Can we say now, that this whole argument is weakened?
Nope...

[etph0neh0me93]

Can someone explain when the test makers expect me to see that two sentences paraphrase and become equivalent? (i.e. in this problem, "fall behind in the international arms race" = "wind up in a strategically disadvantageous position" and "maintain value system and way of life" = "not lose a voice in world affairs") I'm having trouble seeing when I should paraphrase and how to avoid making too many assumptions. Thanks.

[maryadkins]

Can someone explain when the test makers expect me to see that two sentences paraphrase and become equivalent? (i.e. in this problem, "fall behind in the international arms race" = "wind up in a strategically disadvantageous position" and "maintain value system and way of life" = "not lose a voice in world affairs")

You're not being asked here to view these as equivalent. These are not equivalent and that's part of the problem with this argument.

In general, you should be very wary of term shifts like these on the LSAT.