PrepTest 116
[lcid:3562] Prep Test 116 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S3
Logical reasoning
Question prompt
In 1975, a province
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: D
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Bizarro / Paradox Questions
Answer choices
-
AThe years 1975 and Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. If the economy was prosperous, incomes would be higher, and thus more money could be collected on a lower tax rate, so this answer resolves the discrepancy. We can therefore rule it out. -
BThe definition of "personal Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. By widening the definition, more money would count as income and thus be subject to income tax, so money collected could go up even if the tax rate goes down. -
CThe personal income tax Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. If the tax rate for the wealthiest went up enough to collect more money than was lost by decreasing the tax rate on the rest, then the paradox is resolved. -
DThe province's total revenue Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D matches the stem
Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts
Question Type:
Bizarro Paradox
Stimulus Summary:
1975 — Income tax was reduced 2%
1976 — Income tax was reduced another 2%
1974—1975 — Total income tax collected remained the same
1976 — Total income tax collected went up
Answer Anticipation:
So what's the paradox here? Well, this province decreased the income tax by 2% over two consecutive years. You'd expect them to collect less in income tax after cutting taxes.
However, that's not what happened—it stayed the same, and then it went up. Something has to explain that growth in income tax collected on a smaller tax rate—either because more people moved in, or the economy/employment rate improved, or they got better at fully collecting taxes or preventing people from avoiding them. Any change that explains how more money could be collected at a lower tax rate will resolve this paradox—and thus be incorrect in this Bizarro question.
Answer Explanation:
While this answer may align with an increase in collected income tax, it doesn't explain it. Especially since there's no note on any changes to the other tax rates. We still don't know why/how the total money collected went up despite the tax rate going down, even if other taxes also saw increases. (And this answer doesn't even suggest that other taxes went up, necessarily—if they all stayed the same, but income tax went up, that could completely account for the increase.)
Key Takeaway:
When a change has an unexpected outcome, we can expect answers that resolve this paradox to deal with other changes that can account for that shift. -
EA large number of Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. More taxpayers could account for more taxes despite a lower tax rate.
What this tests
Discussion
-
Unsure layout 1 reply
Started by JohnC
-
Why D? 1 reply
Started by frederickliu
-
Started by Partv