Q2 - Lambert: The proposal to raise

[uhdang]

This question is a Method of Reasoning type.

Here is the Core:

(Lambert) drivers who never use train or bus line should not be forced to pay for gasoline taxes to support mass transit network
==>
proposal to raise gasoline taxes for mass transit network is unfair.

(Keziah) Government has spent far more for funding highways than to fund mass transit + additional revenue from the gasoline tax is making fund distribution more equitable.
==>
You are misunderstanding it.

@ While Lambert is making an argument that those people who are not using the public transportation should not be forced to contribute on it, Keziah is refuting Lambert, claiming it was already unfairly distributed for highway funding, thus this tax raise is actually leveling out the unbalance. Keziah provides information that Lambert has overlooked to challenge L’s conclusion.

A) “elaborating context of the issue” represents correctly what K is doing. K is correcting the context on which L is making his argument just as discussed above. And this makes the proposal more favorable to K. Correct.

B) No such principle applied in this case.

C) We are concerned about the REASON for calling this unfair situation. Appropriateness of fairness as a criterion to judge the matter is NOT questioned.

D) K did not advocate this. Although we can speculate increase in expense for drivers, it is not stated. For Method of Reasoning question, we should always be able to refer back to the passage.

E) K did not decline to argue nor Lambert especially made the case poorly.