Q18 - Politician: A government that taxes

[kmewmewblue]

What is "limiting case" in this answer C?
If I take this phrase "if applied in the limiting case", this will not be an answer?

[bbirdwell]

"Limiting case" just means "in the specific situation mentioned." In this example, the limiting case was a tax rate of 0%. It's just a modifier. Feel free to eliminate it from the sentence, and the answer still holds: the author derives a principle and decides that it's absurd.

[wuqq577]

But what's the difference between choice B and C?

[maryadkins]

The economist's strategy here is to apply the politician's principle--that the lower the tax rate, the more revenue will be generated--to a situation in which it would certainly not be true. If it were zero, there'd be no revenue at all.

(A) is incorrect because the economist isn't stating a general principle.

(B) is incorrect because the economist says nothing about "where the politician's advice has been adopted"--he says it "would mean" no revenue in a hypothetical case. As far as we know, the politician's advice hasn't been adopted anywhere.

(C) is correct.

(D) is incorrect; the economist doesn't question the politician's knowledge of economics.

(E) is incorrect because there isn't attack on a premise's truth. There's just application of the principle to an extreme case to show its absurdity.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

The economist's strategy here is to apply the politician's principle--that the lower the tax rate, the more revenue will be generated--to a situation in which it would certainly not be true. If it were zero, there'd be no revenue at all.

(A) is incorrect because the economist isn't stating a general principle.

(B) is incorrect because the economist says nothing about "where the politician's advice has been adopted"--he says it "would mean" no revenue in a hypothetical case. As far as we know, the politician's advice hasn't been adopted anywhere.

(C) is correct.

(D) is incorrect; the economist doesn't question the politician's knowledge of economics.

(E) is incorrect because there isn't attack on a premise's truth. There's just application of the principle to an extreme case to show its absurdity.

But isn't the economist's conclusion a principle? The Politician's conclusion is a principle and the economist's conclusion is just the negation of the politician's conclusion so it follows that the economist's conclusion is a principle that is incompatible with the principle stated by the politician no?