Q15 - In 1975, a province reduced

[bnuvincent]

I found the answer choices difficult to understand, especially B. I found the widen of the definition in 1975 accouter for the effect in 1976 a little weird. Besides, could you please explain why answer choice D is the correct answer, because you can see it this way: the boom of the economy can be indicated by the totoal taxes and this go on to explain why it rose in 1976?

Thanks

[bbirdwell]

So you've got to find the two points that contradict.

Income tax rates have been lowered, yet total amount collected from them has remained the same.

Your job is to find the one choice that does not explain this. Four of the choices will.

(A) explains it. That the economy was especially prosperous indicates that people earned more and thus paid sufficient extra income tax to compensate for the lowered rate.

(B) explains it. A new category of income was added to the kinds of income eligible for the tax. This would increase the amount of revenue collected.

(C) explains it. The tax rate rose for the wealthy.

(D) does not explain it. Revenue from all taxes? So what? Why did personal income tax revenues stay the same DESPITE the rate being lowered?

(E) explains it. The population grew.

[LSAT Princess]

It seems like most of these answers force you to make too many inferences. For example, in E: the population grew. So what? Maybe none of the immigrants had any income.

[deedubbew]

Personal income tax is included in "all taxes" is it not? D is does not necessarily lead to a constant or rising income revenue, but neither does A or C. A could mean that the economy became more prosperous without keeping the income tax the same or above the previous level. C says that the wealthiest individuals were taxed at a higher rate but that doesn't mean that it brought in more revenue than was lost from the 2% reduction of tax rate on individuals not grouped as the wealthiest. Can someone please help!?

[magic.imango]

Would it be correct to view (D) as a premise booster? The stimulus already states that revenue from personal income tax increases in 1976 so revenue from all taxes also increasing around that time would be redundant?

[maryadkins]

I wouldn't say it's redundant so much as another category altogether. It just doesn't have a bearing on the question, which is about personal income tax. Total revenue from ALL taxes brings in stuff we aren't talking about and have no clue how to measure in reference to personal income tax.

[btwalden]

I don't understand how B. can possibly be right when it refers to only a single event.

The discrepancy is two fold. First, that revenue remained the same when the tax rate was dropped in 1975, and second, that it increased when the rate was further lowered in 1976.

How does a single event in 1975 account for bother of these?

[edjhan]

Hey guys, it looks this topic is closed but I just wanted some feedback for my reasoning regarding each answer choice

A) This would help resolve the argument. If the economy was prosperous in ’75 and ’76, this could explain why the money collected from personal income taxes rose substantially in ’76.
B) This would explain the substantial rise of money collected from personal income taxes in ’76
C) The wealthy constituents had to pay more and therefore the total amount of money collected from personal income taxes rose.
D) Correct. Notice how it says “all taxes”. Why do we care about that? How does that help explain that the total amount of money collected from personal income taxes remained constant from ’74 to ’75 and rose in ’76 when there was a decrease implemented in the personal income tax rate
E) More people moving in would mean that the total amount of money collected would increase in ’76.

How does it look? Anything I missed?