Q18 - Tax reformer: The proposed tax reform legislation

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Necessary Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
The legislation is too specific (according to the right) and too vague (according to the left), so since it can't be both, it must be juuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuust right.

Answer Anticipation:
What is this, Goldilocks?

It is 100% possible that one of these two groups is right and the other is wrong. It's also possible that, while the truth is somewhere in the middle, it's much closer to one side. This false equivalency is a flaw.

There's also a Part vs. Whole flaw here. The argument jumps from what must be true of a statement (it can't be both too vague and too specific) to a conclusion about the legislation as a whole (which is almost certainly made up of multiple statements).

Correct answer:
(E)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Whether or not it's rare is irrelevant to this specific case.

(B) Out of scope. The conclusion is about how the legislation is framed, not implemented.

(C) Other groups criticizing the legislation is outside the scope.

(D) Out of scope. An intent to satisfy a given group doesn't speak to the actual success in framing it a certain way.

(E) Bingo. This answer deals with the Parts vs. Whole gap. If we negate this and there are some vague, some too-specific parts, then both groups could be right, making it impossible to conclude that the legislation is framed juuuuuuuuuuuuuust right.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Negation test. Always, the negation test.

#officialexplanation

[andrewgong01]

I am not understanding this argument. It starts out by saying the criticism is against the legislation and not specific statements. It is only later on that the author says you canbe be too specific and too vague on a specific statement but the criticisms were levied on the document as a whole so I don't quite see the part-vs whole flaw. I think it is also because how I viewed the criticisms as being levied on the document as a whole I chose "D" where the only way to uphold the argument is to say that the legislation was never meant to satisfy another group (and hence, it is perfectly fine/normal/intended that both the Right and the Left 'dislike' it).

Also, what is the false equalviency flaw because I looked at the strategy guide and couldn't find it. Is it the comparison flaw?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, False Equivalency is a form of a Comparison Flaw.

I'm surprised you could AVOID hearing this term during the 2016 Election cycle.

As Trump and Clinton supporters berated each other for months on end, you would hear things like:
A: "How can you vote for Trump. He is worst candidate Republicans have ever nominated."
B: "Yes, but Hillary is also bad, so what are you gonna do!"
A: "That's a false equivalency --- Hillary is not my favorite, but she is nothing like Trump."

A cleaner example might be something like
A: "Omigosh ... you KILLED the bank teller? We said no guns. Killing is wrong!"
B: "Yes, but you were 5 mins late with the getaway car. Tardiness is also wrong, so we're even."
A: "No we're not -- that's a false equivalency --- murder is MAGNITUDES more wrong than tardiness."

The Part to Whole move can be seen just from the last sentence
"Since [claim about 'statement'], it just goes to show that [claim about 'legislation']"

[Smokyearlgrey]

Dear forum

Is the author also committing the unproven vs. untrue fallacy?
it seems like the author is deriving that the legislation is [right] because critics are [wrong]

[HughM388]

I understood what the question was trying to do, but I thought it a little unfair that the correct answer, (E), seemingly attacks the tax reformer's premise. The tax reformer says the legislation is framed just right because a statement "cannot be both too specific and too vague." Then (E) says, "But what if a thing can be both too specific and too vague."

But that's not really an assumption, because the tax reformer already explicitly addressed and ruled out that possibility, in his premises. The tax reformer, notably, does use the word "statement" whereas (E) uses "statements," in the plural. In that light, however, (E) becomes less a necessary assumption and more a premise booster. The more necessary assumption is something along the lines of "Legislation may contain multiple statements just as easily as it can contain a single statement." That is necessary before (E) becomes possible or necessary—and this would have been a more legitimate and interesting question if the correct answer had been more sly, like "It's possible for legislation to contain more than one statement at a time."