How can you keep the same variables???

@Meredith, Great question. The reason you can keep the same variable is because "a higher tax" is a higher tax relative to the 2% tax. This means anything above 2%, which is why we can consider this to be a negation of this variable. In this argument, we have Spending at the same level - >levy sales tax of 2% Therefore, higher tax levy (higher than 2%) - >higher spending level This isn't exactly the contrapositive of the original statement, but the argument is using a contrapositive-like argument structure. Maintaining the same spending level is sufficient for a 2% tax levy. However, the argument then states that if there is a higher tax levy (higher than 2%), then there must be higher spending. (C) says, "If the companies in the state do not increase their workers' wages this year, the prices they charge for their goods can be expected to be much the same as they were last year. Thus, if the companies do increase prices, it will be because they have increased wages." (C) mirrors the structure of the argument in the stimulus well. No increase in wages - > Basically same prices Not basically same prices - >Increased Wages We're told that if wages don't increase, prices will remain basically the same. So, if prices do increase, then wages must increase. This is the closest answer choice to the stimulus, so it's the correct one. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!

This totally makes sense, thank you!! I think what threw me off was that I assumed the 2% increase for next year was what the "higher tax" was referring to. After reading this, I realized that the "higher tax" was higher relative to the 2%, i.e. 3%. Got it! Thanks for this explanation