PrepTest 124

Incorrect. This answer brings up a pro of implementing the tax, thus calling into question whether the downsides outweigh the upsides. Since it weakens the conclusion, we can eliminate this answer.

Incorrect. Similar to (A), this answer brings up a positive of implementing the gas tax, thus undermining the conclusion that the cons outweigh the pros.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Bizarro Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Goal — Encourage conservation
Proposed Approach — Raise the gas tax
Problems with approach —
(1) Decrease the country's competitiveness
(2) Unfairly burden families with transportation costs
(3) Reduce jobs in the energy production sector
Conclusion — The tax would do more harm than good

Answer Anticipation:
First, note that this is a Bizarro Weaken question—not a Strengthen question. While the correct answer might strengthen the argument, it may also do nothing to the argument, so it's better to this of this through a Weaken lens than a Strengthen one.

Second, this argument falls into a pretty common structure—but not the one you may think! It'd be easy to view this as a Goal/Approach passage, but that's the opposing viewpoint's structure. Rather, the Editorialist's argument is a pros/cons list, as highlighted by the conclusion that the cons outweigh the pros.

Looking at the premises, we see that the Editorialist only looks at some of the downsides of the gas tax. As such, the argument can be weakened by raising positives of it, or by undermining the downsides noted by the Editorialist. That gives us a lot of grounds to look for in the answers, which is good since we need to find (and eliminate) four answers that fall into these categories.

Answer Explanation:
This answer deals with the specific implementation, but it doesn't speak to whether it's a good idea or not, so it has no impact on the argument. It is therefore the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Arguments that recommend for or against a course of action generally do so by bringing up pros and cons. However, many of these arguments bring up only the pros or just the cons—and they're flawed because they don't take a balanced and comprehensive view of the course of action before reaching their conclusion. As such, more pros and cons are generally relevant to the logic and should be looked for and considered when reading through the answers.

Incorrect. This answer brings up a pro that undercuts one of the cons, thus weakening the conclusion with a one—two punch!

Incorrect. Similar to (D), this answer brings up a pro that undercuts one of the cons, thus weakening the conclusion with yet another one—two combo!