Logical reasoning PrepTest 109 · Section 4 · Question 23

Incorrect. The Spokesperson brings up negative consequences of the Opposition Party's proposal—she doesn't redefine a key term. It's unclear what term would even be in question here!

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Goal - Stimulate economic activity
Approach - Refund $600m to taxpayers so they can spend it
Problem - Either:
(1) New taxes will be required to make up that money, negating the refund
(2) The government would have to fire people to free up that money, who then wouldn't have money to spend
Conclusion - The proposal wouldn't actually achieve the goal

Answer Anticipation:
This argument follows a common pattern—the Goal/Approach pattern. The specific variation here is that the Spokesperson is bringing up a reason to believe that a specific approach in achieving a goal won't be successful. In this Methods of Reasoning question, we need to describe how she goes about proving that.

The goal here is to stimulate economic activity, and the Spokesperson argues that a $600m tax refund to people won't serve to achieve that goal. Why not? Because one of two things would happen if that money gets sent back to taxpayers. Either other taxes would need to be raised to make up the money and balance the budget (as is required), and so the assumed benefit won't be seen. Or to balance the budget, government workers would need to be dismissed, in which case they wouldn't have any money to spend and the assumed benefit won't be seen.

So the Spokesperson brings up consequences that the Opposition Party doesn't address that would negate any benefit they argue for. Let's find an answer reflecting that.

Answer Explanation:
The Opposition Party predicts that their tax refund would increase spending. However, the Spokesperson shows that the tax refund would also result in more taxes, or in more people losing their jobs, thus reducing spending and balancing out the increase from the tax refund. This answer describes her response, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Common patterns—here, Goal/Approach—generally have a few variations. Being able to work through these patterns and how the individual elements are used in a particular argument is a great way to frame understanding and make it easier to get to a point where you can analyze the logic instead of just focusing on the argument's structure.

Incorrect. The Spokesperson questions whether the Opposition Party's plan will work, but she never questions their motives in proposing the plan.

Incorrect. In all cases of economic activity, the Spokesperson is discussing spending. The Opposition Party wants to stimulate spending, but having people who get refunds pay other taxes would prevent them from spending the money, and firing people to make up the money would prevent them from spending money. There's no distinction between economic activity, just between different ways of balancing the budget. And, in any case, the implication is that these consequences would all result in the same outcome, so there's no distinctions drawn.

Incorrect. The Spokesperson never questions whether people might spend money in a refund. She questioned whether they'd even have money to spend once they paid the taxes raised to balance the budget!