Logical reasoning PrepTest 109 · Section 4 · Question 24

Incorrect. This answer highlights that the spending wouldn't have the positive impact on the province's economy that the Opposition Party expects, so it aligns with the Spokesperson's argument.

Incorrect. It's unclear what impact this would have on the spending habits, but, if anything, not releasing the tax refund as a windfall would lessen the chance that it'd be spent because people wouldn't feel flush. That requires a few assumptions, but they're meant to highlight that this answer is more in the Strengthen direction than the Weaken direction.

Incorrect. The question is whether the new taxes could avoid taking that $600m right back from taxpayers, not whether it could be done in a way that avoids angering them.

Incorrect. The stimulus is a debate over whether the tax refund would work to stimulate the economy. As such, whether a separate proposal would also work to stimulate the economy is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

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:
Let's start with the question stem, which is certainly interesting. It reads like a negated Strengthen with Sufficient Premise question. In those, we're tasked with finding an answer where the conclusion would follow if accepted, but here we're looking for something that guarantees the conclusion would not follow. As such, we're more in the Weaken world, but the answer will likely hurt the argument more than the average Weaken answer. However, we can still approach this as a Weaken question. (And we should also expect an answer that would be correct in a Strengthen/with Sufficient Premise question, as they will likely expect some people to misread the stem.)

And, specifically, we're trying to find an answer that shows that the proposal could meet its goal of stimulating economic activity by getting people to spend their tax refunds.

There were two problems that could get in the way of this, and the Spokesperson raised them as exhaustive alternatives (if not one, then the other; "or else"). As such, resolving either issue would resolve the problem fully, since the problems don't build on each other but rather present two possibilities.

So we should look for answers that resolve at least one of the two problems:
(1) The need to raise other taxes to make up for the $600m shortfall
(2) The need to fire government workers to make up for the $600m shortfall

In other words, let's look for an answer that finds $600m in a place that would not take it out of the pockets of the people the Opposition Party wants to spend it.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that the government could find the $600m by using its workforce more efficiently instead of firing them. That would allow for the tax refunds without resulting in some people losing their jobs, thus allowing for the consumer spending that the Opposition Party is aiming for. Since this answer addresses the problem with the Party's approach highlighted by the Spokesperson, it weakens her argument and is correct.

Key Takeaway:
Don't take the question stem for granted! It'd be easy to misread this as a Strengthen with Sufficient Premise question stem, in which case the correct answer would be eliminated.