Q27

[elanaminkoff]

I was very tempted by C, can someone please try and explain how I can more confidently rule it out and choose B. B seems to be a strong weakener, and I sort of approached this as an LR weaken question, and I thought B addressed a gap in AuthoR a's argument, but again I did not have much confidence when choosing this and I would appreciate some insight.

Thanks

[christine.defenbaugh]

Another great question elenaminkoff!

As it did in Question 24, our awareness of what each author's primary argument is going to drive this overlap question. We aren't just being asked it identify how someone would counter Author A's final argument, but rather how Author B would do so! So, once again, we should first identify what each passage takes as its primary "position".

Passage A argues that a flat tax can be practically implemented, and it can be fair/progressive (or at least, as fair/progressive as a graduated tax is currently). Passage B, in contrast, raises the very fairness objection Passage A intends to quell - that a graduated tax is the more 'fair' option, since the survival dollars are fundamentally different from discretionary dollars.

The "final argument" of Passage A is that graduated tax systems aren't nearly as progressive as they first appear, because the high earners often manage to avoid the higher tax they are theoretically supposed to pay. (And the result of this is that those high earners *end up* paying the same real rates in both systems).

So, what would Author B say back to this? Author B is focused on defending the graduated system. Author A is raising this tax avoidance issue as evidence for why we can or should switch to a flat tax. (B) hands Author B a great weapon - essentially, the complaint (tax avoidance) is not caused by the graduated system.

In other words, we might say to Author A, "Look, you're right that high earners avoid tax in the current graduated system - but that's not because it's graduated, it's just because the tax system is complicated. That problem is good evidence for eliminating complexity, but you don't have to eliminate the graduated tax rates to eliminate complexity."

(C) seems to respond to Author A, but to no purpose; why would it be unfair to single out the high-earners? Author B's purpose isn't to defend high-earners from unfair characterizations. Additionally, Author A is simply pointing out one group that avoids tax - there's no indication that his argument rests on an assumption that they are the only ones who do.

So, it's not clear that this would really damage Author A's argument at all. Even if we could make an argument that it did, though, it would not serve Author B's position, so it's unlikely Author B would make such a counter!

Let's take a look at the remaining incorrect answer choices, for completeness' sake:
(A) - Author A's final argument here is that tax avoidance will be *less* common under a simplified flat tax. It may still happen on occasion, but as long as it is less common, Author A's point stands.
(D) - Who cares what taxpayers prefer?
(E) - Author A's argument is that there will be less tax avoidance under a simplified flat tax than under the current graduated tax. There might be OTHER ways to achieve 'no/low tax avoidance', and that wouldn't damage his comparative argument. Also, switching to a consumption tax would not serve Author B's argument, so even if this was a valid weakener, Author B would not be inclined to assert it.


First step here is to carefully identify the primary purpose of each author, and remember that you're being asked to find the best counter that Author B would make to Author A, not just any good counter to Author A's argument in a vacuum.

Please let me know if that helps clear up the confusion!