griffin.811
Thanks Received: 43
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 127
Joined: September 09th, 2012
 
 
 

Q26 - The government has no right

by griffin.811 Wed Jan 09, 2013 1:20 am

Is the key to this question the idea that "such taxation forces the laborer to work, IN PART, for another's purpose." Thus establishing a difference between two uses of "forced to work for another's purpose?"

I'm assuming this is due to the fact that individuals that pay taxes benefit from such payments in the sense of national defense, disaster relief, etc...

Thanks
User avatar
 
a3friedm
Thanks Received: 23
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 51
Joined: December 01st, 2012
 
This post thanked 2 times.
 
trophy
Most Thankful
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q26 - The government has no right

by a3friedm Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:41 pm

that's one way to look at it, but I think it would be helpful to be a little broader with it because they test this pattern of reasoning all the time. The author assumes that because they have one quality in common (working for anothers purpose), they must also share a second quality ie. "perniciousness". However we are not told that the former guarantees the latter.

What if I were to say, you and I have brown hair. So we must also also both love jazz music. We can't assume that because we have one quality, we are guaranteed to have the second.
User avatar
 
bbirdwell
Thanks Received: 864
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 803
Joined: April 16th, 2009
 
This post thanked 2 times.
 
 

Re: Q26 - The government has no right

by bbirdwell Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:51 am

I like the jazz/hair example.

Just to add more dimension to it, we could think of it as an argument by analogy as well (which is common on the test). We tall people should listen to jazz, because all the brunettes do!

Or something along those lines. Once this kind of "analogy" is seen, we can answer a number of questions:

flaw --> assumes the analogies are valid; ignores the fact that the two cases may differ in some important way
assumption --> same
weaken --> specific example why the analogy is flawed (tall people are physically unable to here saxophones)
strengthen --> specific example why the analogy is NOT flawed (tall people and brunettes are exactly the same in every way)

Now that's a rough idea with some crude examples, but thought it was worth mentioning!
I host free online workshop/Q&A sessions called Zen and the Art of LSAT. You can find upcoming dates here: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/zen-and-the-art.cfm
 
griffin.811
Thanks Received: 43
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 127
Joined: September 09th, 2012
 
 
 

Re: Q26 - The government has no right

by griffin.811 Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:41 pm

"Often tested patterns of reasoning" is a very nice way of thinking about these questions!!

If Manhattan were to come up with a supplemental LR guide with this info, I think it would have many fans. The current LR guide may already reference these, but I don't remember seeing much on this.

So now I see the error in the reasoning with this, but how does this pair up with answer choice A? What would be the difference that is ignored?

Right now I'm more inclined to look for something along the lines of what bbirdwell recommends for flaw in the above post.

Thanks to both above!
User avatar
 
Mab6q
Thanks Received: 31
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 290
Joined: June 30th, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q26 - The government has no right

by Mab6q Sun Jan 26, 2014 11:50 am

What type of flaw is E?
"Just keep swimming"
User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 3808
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4661
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q26 - The government has no right

by ohthatpatrick Wed Jan 29, 2014 6:02 pm

It's not quite a "type" of flaw, because this is the only time I can remember seeing what (E) describes.

There IS a recurring type of flaw answer choice that accuses the author of mixing up "subjective ideas" and "objective ideas".

So we could say that (E) is an example of that type of answer choice. (It's specifically about 'definitions', which is the part I've never seen before)

But I want to emphasize that I can't remember EVER having seen a CORRECT answer choice that discusses "subjective vs. objective". It just shows up a lot in incorrect answer choices.

Here's an example of what that flaw might look like if it ever actually happened in an LSAT argument:

The school's charter explains that "the most beautiful girl in the school should be Homecoming Queen". Since Reggie thinks that his girlfriend Mable is the most beautiful girl in the school, then according to the school's charter, Mable should be Homecoming Queen.

======

Here's a complete explanation of Q26, since we don't have one up yet.

Flaw

Mini-argument to reach Intermed. Conc
Govt. has no right to tax earnings
+
this kind of taxation forces laborers to spend some hours working for the govt.
======
this kind of taxation forces laborers to work, in part, for another's purpose

From there, the argument is:
Govt. taxing earnings forces laborers to work, in part, for another's purpose
+
"involuntary servitude" can be defined as "forced work for another's purpose"
+
involuntary servitude is pernicious
============
Govt. taxing earnings is pernicious

Hopefully, you're uncomfortable with the author comparing taxes on your wages to SLAVERY!

The former seems way more benign to me than the latter. The author gets us to that conclusion by highlighting an aspect of taxing wages that conforms to the definition of "involuntary servitude".

Okay, so maybe we're "forced" to pay taxes, and servants are "forced" to work for someone else. But taxes help pay for tons of social benefits, such as roads, hospitals, parks, national defense, etc. Taxes are more like being "forced to chip in to a communal savings account that buys us cool stuff", while slavery is being forced to work without enjoying any of those benefits later on.

So something about this Flaw is probably that the author is failing to see how being forced to pay taxes provides us with benefit while being forced into servitude does not provide benefits. Maybe that's why it feels so wrong to equate them.

Let's look at the answer choices
(A) Okay, this could work. This answer is essentially saying, "the author is focusing on what is similar about taxation and slavery but ignoring the ways in which they're different". Keep it.

(B) Hmmm, did higher tax rates for the wealthy vs. lower tax rates for the poor enter into our assessment of his reasoning? No.

(C) That's an extreme assumption: ALL work is taxed? Can we find the author saying or implying such a thing? I can't. The author definitely implies that SOME work is taxed.

(D) Hmmm, were we bothered by the argument because the author didn't bring up taxes on stocks, bonds, and dividends? No we were bothered that he was equating paying income taxes with being enslaved.

(E) There is one definition here, that of "involuntary servitude". I'm not sure if the author considered it a subjective or objective definition. Either way, my problem with the author's argument was not that he was making subjective feelings seem like objective truths. It was that he was equating taxable wages with slavery. I didn't have a problem with the definition he provided of "involuntary servitude". I had a problem with the fact that he was saying, "since taxable earnings has THIS in common with involuntary servitude, it is essentially the same thing."