Q24 - Party spokesperson: The opposition

[ldanny24]

Hi,

I had a hard time with this one. Can someone please explain why E is the correct choice?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This one is simply a budgeting issue. Let's turn the story into your own personal budget. Suppose you're working on your personal budget and see that you fall short one month by $30. You need to either work more hours or cut back, right? Not if you're clever!

What about looking for wasteful expenditures? Suppose your phone bill is $125/month (I know... that's a really high phone bill)? What if you were to switch providers and reduce your phone bill down to $105/month. Okay, you're almost there! Now you look at your other bills and see that you're paying $60/month for a wine club. And you could save $40 just by purchasing that wine from the grocery store. Okay, now you don't have a budget deficit.

Answer choice (E) is saying that you don't have to either cut back or fire those employees. If you can save $600 million by using the employees more wisely, you can give the tax break, keep employees, and live happily ever after.

Does that answer your question?

[skapur777]

i was confused by this question for sure. I was stuck between D and E. For E, what do they mean by 'out-of-province' expenditures?

And what about D?

Sorry I don't have an answer choice breakdown like i usually do because this practice test's logical reasoning was much harder than the usual ones, i usually score -2 and lower and this one i went -5, -4 respectively on section 2 and 4.

UGH...

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Let's take a quick run through of the answer choices. Though I think it's the wording of answer choice (D) that's misleading. With a quick read, one leaves answer choice (D) with the impression that the overall economy would be increased, but that's not really the case.

(A) says the province would lose money rather than break even. So while this would challenge a conclusion that said the province would break even, it does not challenge the conclusion that the province will have no resulting increase in spending.
(B) is irrelevant.
(C) is irrelevant. The taxpayers anger plays no role in the argument.
(D) would not result in a net increase in spending. The $600 million would have been spent otherwise. This simply "redirects" where the money is spent. It doesn't increase the amount spent in the economy.
(E) increases the amount of money available to be spent in the province by reducing the amount of money that would have otherwise left the province.

Thanks for pushing us further!

[anjelica.grace]

I'm sorry, I'm probably way overthinking this but I still don't get why (A) is wrong.

[shirando21]

what actually are we attacking here?

are we attacking "there can be no resulting net increase in spending to stimulate the province's economy" based on "either new taxes would be needed to make up the shortfall, in which case the purpose of the refund would be defeated, or else workers for the province would be dismissed"?

Why wouldn't B be correct?

[nflamel69]

If any Geeks can give me some advices it would great. At first I thought the conclusion is that there is no net increase in spending like Matt suggested. But after re reading it so many times I feel like the conclusion should be the proposal that the refund would cause the tax payers to spend the money is not true. In a sense, this is more qualified than the previous interpretation. This actually says this group will not spend it. I feel like this would make the approach to this question different than the one Matt suggested. I'm not saying mine is right, because more than likely Matt is. But it would be great if someone take a look at my thought process.

Conclusion: the proposal to refund the money so tax payer can spend them is just an illusion.

Premise: the two reasons given.

A. Irrelevant. why would where they spend the money matter? and this doesn't address the problems given in the stimulus

B. irrelevant. who cares what form the money refunded is?

C. this may tempt ppl who overlook the fact that it avoids angering taxpayers. the effect it has is unclear, so how does the avoidance deal with whether there is going to be spending by tax payers or not.

D. This is where my thought process differs the most. this would be irrelevant since even if the province could redirect the money, its still not the case that tax payer are spending them

E. This is the only one left. and it addresses the possibility that we could end up saving the workers and still allow the possibility to let tax payers spend the money

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hey nflamel69!

Here's what I think. in some sense you are right - the main point is the rebuttal of the opposition party's suggestion that their proposal would stimulate the economy by increasing net spending.

Here's the structure of the argument:

Main point - the net increase in spending is illusory.
Premise - budget is required to be in balance
Intermediate Conclusion - either new taxes would be required or some workers would be dismissed
Repeat of Main Conclusion - no net increase in spending to stimulate the province's economy

What do you think?

[dean.won]

Quick question... is this a false dilemma flaw?

[zainrizvi]

Isn't the bigger flaw with (D) that it simply does not align with the argument.

The first line of the argument states that the opposition party's proposal to REFUND the money has illusory benefits. That, I think, is the main conclusion. (D) does not work because it is not consistent with refunding the money -- who cares if you do create a jobs around the province, since you are not refunding the money (and hence the conclusion that a refund would cause illusory benefits still stands).

[leroyjenkins]

I agree with zainrizvi. Isn't that a better reason to eliminate D?

[Alvanith]

This one is really painful.

I have a hard time to understand why dismiss workers can balance the budget. So I did not bother to figure it out at my timed attempt.

The core is:

The budget has to be balanced ==> either new tax is required to make up the refund or workers would be dismissed ==> no net increase in spending.

So the argument is assuming somehow the net spending would not be increased if the budget were balanced through two proposed ways.

And the argument assumes these two ways are the ONLY ways to balance the budget: since balance is required, we have to either...or....

But, as (E) says, there is a third way that a new tax is not required AND workers are not supposed to be dismissed:

keep its workers (the workers would NOT be dismissed)

+

savings of $600 million expenditures (new tax is NOT required)

IMO, (E) essentially points out a flaw in the argument: false dilemma.



After I wrote all these things above, (E) suddenly makes more sense to me:

The formula for budget balancing:

0 = gov. spending out + gov. collecting in

The formula for spending:

net increase in spending = spending by taxpayers + detriment taxpayers carried with like new taxes or employment dismissal calculated as monetary value

Party Spokesperson's reasoning:

0 (budget has to be balanced) = -$600m (refund from provincial taxes) + $600m (new taxes or dismissal or workers)

0 (no net increase) = -$600m (newly imposed taxes or employment dismissal) + $600m (taxpayers or workers will have the $600m to spend)

(E) is saying:

0 (budget has to be balanced) = -$600m (refund from provincial taxes) + $600m (saved $600m from greater efficiency of workers)

$600m (net increase) = 0 (saved $600m from greater efficiency of workers balance out the refund from provincial taxes so taxpayers do not have to bear with more detriment this time) + $600m (taxpayers or workers will have the $600m to spend)

At this point, it seems another assumption in the Spokesperson's argument is exposed that if the budget is balanced then there would be no net increase in spending. But, as answer choice (E) presents, there is a way to increase net spending when budget is still balanced.

Hope this helps and please correct me if I am not right.

[dukeag]

What does a "net increase" in spending really mean? Isn't it basically just a fancy way of saying that they taxpayers will spend more money than they did before?

[maryadkins]

Good discussion here of a tricky question.

Yep, increased net spending is just what you said: people spending more. (E) makes that possible because everything DOESN'T just balance out under (E)—it's more efficient to give the refund.

And to the people who came up with the reason for eliminating (D) of "what does it have to do with the argument?", I'm with you!

[WaltGrace1983]

Proposal: stimulate the economy by refunding $600 million in taxes is illusory

If the proposal is to happen, either more taxes or dismissed workers would have to happen
+
More taxes = purpose would be defeated
-->
There cannot be a net increase in spending

We are supposed to show that this claim CANNOT follow. This is almost like a must be false question (?). Thus, it seems that anything that falls short of pretty much guaranteeing a net increase wouldn't work.

(A) Strengthens the conclusion. Spending the $300 million outside the province would seem to not benefit the province. In addition (even if you didn't want to make this assumption that spending outside the province wouldn't benefit the province), spending "at least" $300 million isn't going to get the job done here. We would need to spend at least $600 million.

(B) Don't care HOW they receive it. We care what they DO with it. We want them to spend $600 million + and this answer choice doesn't say that.

(C) We don't care about the feelings of the taxpayers. We care about what the taxpayers do with their refund.

(D) This wouldn't seem to impact the conclusion because refunding the money was the whole point of the stimulus! The stimulus was surrounded around the idea that "refunding the money won't create a net increase." This would be a better answer if it said something about how refunding the money could create jobs, produce more spending, etc.

(E) This, to me, shows that the govt. could refund the money to taxpayers AND make that deficit up by working more efficiently. Thus, as long as a taxpayer spends $.01 or more of the refund (a pretty small assumption), the economy will be stimulated.

[keane.xavier]

Hello, all.

In recent weeks, I've been combing for trends. I believe that I've identified one here, but I'd like to know what everyone thinks.

Here's my write-up:

We’re being asked to weaken the conclusion that there cannot be a resulting net increase in spending from the proposal.

Because the city’s budget must be balanced, the author asserts that if the $600M proposal were to be passed, one of two conditions must occur in order to balance the resultant budget deficit—either (1) there must be new taxes (and the city workers are kept) or (2) city workers must be dismissed (and there are no new taxes). Because one of these two conditions must occur in order to balance the budget deficit, thereby counteracting the effect of the proposal, the author concludes that from the proposal there cannot be a net increase in spending, as the necessary occurrence of either condition would balance the budget deficit and curb spending in the group that isn’t refunded (in other words, negate the effect of the proposal).

To weaken this argument, we need to show that the budget can be balanced in other ways and that the necessary conditions outlined by the author aren’t in fact necessary. Perhaps the necessary conditions purported by the author—(1) new taxes or (2) dismissed workers—need not occur after all. If the budget can be balanced without imposing new taxes or dismissing workers from the province, thus not taking money out of either group's pocket, then perhaps there could be a net increase in spending.

A. While this answer choice suggests that there would, indeed, be spending by the taxpayer, it suggests that there wouldn’t be an increase in spending to stimulate the province’s economy because the taxpayers would spend half of their refund outside of the province. Furthermore, any increase in net spending or any benefit that this refund may provide on the province’s economy may still be negated by either new taxes or provincial worker dismissal because the budget must be balanced. This answer choice doesn’t suggest any other ways in which balancing the budget could be accomplished without negating the effects of the proposal. Thus, this answer choice doesn’t weaken the argument.

B. This answer choice is wrong for reasons similar to why answer choice A is wrong. Any increase in net spending or any expected benefit that this refund may have on the province’s economy may still be negated by either new taxes or provincial worker dismissal because the budget must be balanced. This answer choice doesn’t suggest any other ways in which balancing the budget could be accomplished without negating the effects of the proposal. Thus, this answer choice doesn’t weaken the argument, either.

C. It doesn’t matter whether the province would anger taxpayers. New taxes levied in response to a taxpayer refund would negate any potential increase in net spending resulting from the refund.

D. I believe that this answer is out of scope. The author concludes that there wouldn’t be an increase in net spending as a result of the proposal. Whether or not the province could stimulate the economy by other means, the author’s conclusion about the proposal still stands.

E. Although subtle, this answer choice demonstrates that the necessary conditions purported by the author aren’t in fact necessary. If the budget could be balanced without dismissing the workers or levying new taxes (by way of using those workers more effectively), this suggests that the proposed refund would increase net spending in the province because in response to a refund, the budget would be balanced by using workers more effectively, thereby enabling the province to keep its workers and not levy new taxes. Thus, the $600M wouldn't be taken out of either group's pockets.

[OrlandoG178]

Hello guys!

My problem with E i s that it states "out of province expenditures" and I don't understand what that means or where it came from.