Logical reasoning PrepTest 158 · Section 4 · Question 1

This answer choice is irrelevant to the author’s argument. It doesn’t show that the government is trying to crack down on corporate income tax violations, even if it hasn’t completed any audits this year. This answer choice just provides context to the government’s promise to crack down on corporate income tax violations. If the argument concluded that the government is not trying to reduce “corporate misconduct” because it hasn’t completed any audits, this answer choice would weaken the argument. But the argument concludes that the government isn’t trying to cut down corporate income tax violations, making this answer choice irrelevant.

Like (A), this answer choice doesn’t show that the government is trying to crack down on corporate income tax violations, even if it hasn’t completed any audits this year. Instead, this answer choice tells us about “personal income tax” — not “corporate income tax.” The former addresses whether individuals accurately report the incomes they receive; the latter addresses whether corporations accurately report the incomes they pay their employees. If the argument concluded that the government is not trying to reduce “income tax violations” because it hasn’t completed any audits of corporations, this answer choice would weaken the argument. But the argument concludes that the government isn’t trying to cut down corporate income tax violations, making this answer choice irrelevant.

This answer choice is irrelevant to the author’s argument. It doesn’t show that the government is trying to crack down on corporate income tax violations, even if it hasn’t completed any audits this year. This answer choice tells us about the success rate of audits on corporate income tax returns. But that’s irrelevant to the argument’s conclusion, which addresses whether the government is attempting to crack down on violations of corporate income tax law. Whether these audits would reveal fraud is immaterial to whether these attempts are being made.

Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Passage Summary:
The government hasn’t cracked down on corporate income tax violations. We know this because audits are the primary tool to uncover corporate income tax violations but the government hasn’t completed any audits over the last year.

Strategy Overview:

1. Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify premises and conclusions of argument
2. Anticipate why the premises are not enough to show that the conclusion is true
1. Causal argument? Look for answer choice that:
1. Shows possible alternate cause
2. Shows cause without effect
3. Shows effect without cause
4. Shows the cause and effect are reversed
2. If not causal argument, anticipate ways to worsen problem with argument
3. Use anticipations to select the answer choice that, if true, would weaken argument

Answer Anticipation:
Our ultimate goal is to find the answer choice that weakens the argument. However, it's much easier to do that if we first break down the argument and identify its flaws. Then, weakening the argument is only a matter of finding the answer choice that exploits that flaw.

After breaking down this argument, an experienced test-taker will immediately note that this conclusion makes a rather bold claim — the government hasn’t cracked down on corporate income tax violations. This claim displays a lot of certainty. The author is certain that the government hasn’t tried to uncover corporate income tax violations. To be this certain, you need *a lot* of evidence. To prove this conclusion, you’d need to show that the government hasn’t done anything to detect or reduce corporate income tax violations. On the LSAT, arguments seldom include this much evidence.

And that’s the problem here. The author only looks to one method to uncover corporate income tax violations. Even if audits are the “primary tool” to detect these violations, there might still be many other tools the government could use to detect or reduce corporate income tax violations. The author may not have even fully addressed whether the government is using audits to crack down on corporate income tax violations! The author mentions that no audits have been completed “over the past year.” But if audits take more than a year to complete, the government may be in the process of completing an audit. In that case, the government would still be trying to uncover corporate income tax violations. The author doesn’t address whether there are more tools or whether the audits can be completed within a year, so this argument is unpersuasive.

The correct answer will probably exploit these issues by showing that the government has attempted to cut down on corporate income tax violations in other ways or that audits take more than a year to complete. That said, many things could feasibly weaken this argument, so we should keep an open mind as we progress through the answer choices. We can start by asking whether each answer choice tends to show that the government is pursuing ways to crack down on corporate income tax violations, even if it hasn’t completed any audits this year.

Answer Choice Explanation:
This definitely weakens the author’s argument. As we anticipated, it shows that the government’s audits on corporate income tax returns take longer than a year. So, even if no audits have been completed this year, the government could still be pursuing these audits and thus attempting to uncover corporate income tax law violations. In other words, (D) shows that the government is trying to crack down on corporate income tax violations, even if it hasn’t completed any audits this year.

Key Takeaway:
On a question from the Analyzing Flaws family of LR questions, pay attention to how bold the language is in the conclusion. When a conclusion makes a rather bold claim that expresses a high degree of certainty, the argument seldom includes enough evidence to make that claim convincing. Consider whether there are any factors or options the author overlooked. 

This answer choice is irrelevant to the author’s argument, which focuses only on the “past year.” The number of audits over the last “five years” doesn’t tell us anything about the number of audits this past year. Besides, the argument already told us that no audits on corporate income tax returns have been completed this year. Even if this answer choice did tell us about the number of audits completed over the last year, it wouldn’t add any information that could meaningfully affect the author’s argument.