Q14 - Principle: A government should reduce taxes

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Sufficient Assumption (Principle)

Stimulus Breakdown:
P1: Financially benefit many domestic consumers → Reduce taxes on imports
P2: If at least one domestic industry hurt → Don't reduce taxes on imports

C: Don't reduce taxes on textile imports

Answer Anticipation:
Our second principle is the one in play since it's about not reducing taxes. What's the trigger there? At least one domestic industry being injured. The correct answer should state that at least one domestic industry would be hurt by reducing the taxes (careful: it doesn't have to be the textile industry).

Correct answer:
(E)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Wrong principle. This answer is trying to get you to commit an illegal negation of the first principle.

(B) Term shift. The trigger is harm to the domestic industry, not a lack of benefit.

(C) Double term shift! This answer is about exports, not imports. Also, it states there will be added competition, not that the competition will be harmful.

(D) Term shift. "Benefit less" isn't the same as being harmed.

(E) …but it is the textile industry. This answer triggers the second Principle, allowing the conclusion to be reached.

Takeaway/Pattern:
For Principle questions, the small words matter! Also, when multiple Principles are established, be sure to know which one is being invoked/is relevant to the given answer choice.

#officialexplanation

[KelliW299]

Can’t you contropose P1 to line up with (A)?

[ChrisB741]

Can’t you contropose P1 to line up with (A)?

If you take the contrapositive of P1, you get

~Reduce Taxes on Imports -> ~Benefit many consumers in Domestic economy...

Since the conclusion we are trying to prove is "~Reduce taxes on imports", we need this term to be in the necessary of a conditional statement.

Answer choice A is trying to get you to reverse the contrapositive of the first statement, which would be an illegal reversal.