Q25 - Political philosopher: A just system

[altate]

I am having a bit of trouble wrapping my brain around this one..Could someone please try to summarize the reasoning used in the stimulus. Also, why was C incorrect? It would be great if you could review why each answer choice aside from A was wrong just for clarity.

Thank you

[hwsitgoing]

I second this question, ideas anyone??

[jcl2153]

To recap the argument:
P1: A just system of taxation requires that each person’s contribution correspond directly to the amount the society as a whole contributes to serve that person’s interests.
P2: Wealth is the most objective way of determining the amount the society as a whole contributes to serve that person’s interests
C: People should be taxed in proportion to his/her income.

This one was difficult for me to put into words because it didn’t seem apparent at first whether the argument easily conformed to an identifiable flaw. As with all parallel flaw questions, though, I was ultimately able to identify the correct answer choice by two means: first, by matching the distinctive structure of the argument (specifically, the precise way in which the argument uses the idea of proportionality); and second, by seeing that the primary flaw lies in an illicit turn of phrase. In order to see these two points (the parallel and the flaw), it helped for me to break the argument down to its most basic structural components. In thus greatly (and perhaps even overly) simplified terms:

P1: (Taxation of each person) should be done (in proportion to) (society’s contribution to that person).
P2: (Wealth) is best way to determine (society’s contribution to that person)
C: (Taxation of each person) should be done (in proportion to) (income).

I placed distinct ideas in parentheses to better highlight the structure of the argument. Since there are quite a few components floating around and I’m simply not gifted in the way that some people are in boiling down the structure of an argument succinctly, I’ll try demonstrating this very abstractly (though I don’t necessarily recommend doing so in practice):

P1: T should be done in proportion to SC
P2: W is the best way to determine SC
C: T should be done in proportion to I

This helped me quite a bit with identifying the correct parallel structure, and in the course of doing so, it becomes quite apparent (if you hadn’t already noticed) that wealth is erroneously reduced to income.

Answer choice (A) conforms to this parallel structure and this flaw quite nicely:
P1: (Taxation of cars) should be done (in proportion to) (the danger cars pose)
P2: (Speed) is the best way to measure (the danger cars pose)
C: (Taxation of cars) should be done (in proportion to) (ability to accelerate)
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the flaw occurs when speed is erroneously reduced to the ability to accelerate.

Caveat - I'm definitely no LSAT instructor, so this is by no means the best way to work this question.

[maryadkins]

The benefit of this question is that the answer choices are organized like the stimulus. Great breakdown of the structure of the stimulus! My favorite of them was your simplest:

P1: T should be done in proportion to SC
P2: W is the best way to determine SC
C: T should be done in proportion to I

As you noted, (A) matches this.

(B) introduces some new elements. The test "was designed" to provide a measure--that's different than being "the most objective way" to measure, which is what we have in our stimulus. Also, (B)'s conclusion is a little off. If you score over a certain level? That's a kind of standard we don't have in our stimulus.

(C) tries to get you because it's on the same subject matter. It rests on the same general idea (substantively)--that tax should match benefits. But (C) pits corporations against individual citizens by drawing a distinction between them. Its conclusion is comparative. This doesn't match the stimulus.

(D) can be broken down as follows:

L should get H.
H should pay T.
So L should pay T, too.

This is a different structural argument. First, notice every sentence has the word "should" in it. This is a red flag since only our conclusion in the stimulus does. Second, we have three elements that are just leading from one to another. This doesn't match our stimulus, which introduces a new element (income) in the conclusion.

(E) doesn't match. It only has two structural pieces: healthcare and need.

[shirando21]

The benefit of this question is that the answer choices are organized like the stimulus. Great breakdown of the structure of the stimulus! My favorite of them was your simplest:

P1: T should be done in proportion to SC
P2: W is the best way to determine SC
C: T should be done in proportion to I

As you noted, (A) matches this.

(B) introduces some new elements. The test "was designed" to provide a measure--that's different than being "the most objective way" to measure, which is what we have in our stimulus. Also, (B)'s conclusion is a little off. If you score over a certain level? That's a kind of standard we don't have in our stimulus.

(C) tries to get you because it's on the same subject matter. It rests on the same general idea (substantively)--that tax should match benefits. But (C) pits corporations against individual citizens by drawing a distinction between them. Its conclusion is comparative. This doesn't match the stimulus.

(D) can be broken down as follows:

L should get H.
H should pay T.
So L should pay T, too.

This is a different structural argument. First, notice every sentence has the word "should" in it. This is a red flag since only our conclusion in the stimulus does. Second, we have three elements that are just leading from one to another. This doesn't match our stimulus, which introduces a new element (income) in the conclusion.

(E) doesn't match. It only has two structural pieces: healthcare and need.

In parallel reasoning, is the choice of the same subject usually the wrong answer to confuse test writers?

[Daniella.owusu]

Okay, so I will explain the way I saw this question because it helped me to digest this. The flaw that I saw was saying the most objective way to measure would be by wealth. Wealth comes in many forms, but then they say that the person should be taxed SOLELY by income. The flaw is that it takes one way of wealth to say that it should be the only way.

A) matches up perfectly to me. The most reliable (objective) is the speed at which a car travels. But what speed could we be referring to? Could it be take off speed or speed after a certain mileage, we don't know. Then it concludes that it should be ONLY to the cars ability to accelerate quickly. There could've been other ways to measure the speed.

[rbkfrye]

It's a good thing "solely" was there, because that's what I used too, but I just noticed wealth is not at all the same thing as income. Someone could have a lot of one and none of the other. Income isn't one of many wealth measures"”it's a measure of something related, but entirely separate.

(A) apes this by suggesting taxing "acceleration", instead of the most reliable indicator it just named ("speed"). Both say taxing something is best, and then instead suggest taxing the rate of change of that something.

[FarOutsidetheBox]

I am having a bit of trouble wrapping my brain around this one..Could someone please try to summarize the reasoning used in the stimulus. Also, why was C incorrect? It would be great if you could review why each answer choice aside from A was wrong just for clarity.

Thank you

There is a very simple explanation for this problem, but it's a little sneaky because you need to think about what acceleration means (it helps if you've ever taken physics )

It's a simple analogy, actually one my physics teacher used explicitly when teaching about motion:

Income is to wealth as speed is to velocity.

Allow me to explain.

The argument says:
Tax should reflect benefit
Benefit is measured by wealth.
Therefore, tax income.

Did you see the jump? He says explicitly that benefit = wealth, but then he jumps to income. Are wealth and income the same? NO, they are not. Wealth says what you have now, income says how fast more is coming in. (Think of it this way, who has benefited more from society, a retired billionaire with no income or someone in poverty earning $5,000 per year?).

This is the same error in A. We SHOULD tax cars based on their max speed, but instead it proposes acceleration (how quickly the speed changes). Imagine a car that went from 0 to max speed of 10 mph in 1 second versus a car that went from 0 to 100 mph in 20 seconds. The second car is much more dangerous even though it accelerates at a lower rate.

As for (C), which also tempted me, my short answer would be that it's a different error. This is a mistake of relativity (large benefit = largest benefit). The correct response must address the unsubstantiated shift from measuring a thing to measuring the rate of change in that thing.

[kyuya]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but upon reviewing this question, I found this helpful.

In this stimulus, it states that since "x" is the most reliable way of determining (fill in the blank), therefore it should be the ONLY measure used.

This is not paralleled anywhere except for in (A).

(B) doesn't match up in various ways. For example, never states what is most reliable. Then also does not state it should use ONLY any measure.

(C) does use the world "solely", however, it never refers to something being the most reliable. If there was a measure included in here that stated "X" was the most reliable, and therefore everyone should pay taxes solely in proportion to the benefits, then this answer would be a better contender.

(D) Just like (B) doesn't match up in either way.

(E) Doesn't match up in any way , just like (B) and (D)

[vickpetrosian1]

I reallllly Really dislike answer choice "A" right at the end .... the arguments shows that the people in discussion are going to be taxed on their income....Meaning you made 200K now were taxing you ok ..... In answer choice A it says cars should be taxed in proportion to their ability to accelerate quickly ....

The concept of having an ability to be able to do something is VERY different from the idea of Actually doing that something.....

example: My corvette is capable of going 0 to 60 in 3 seconds if i punch it... ok sweet ... i drive like a grandma and never punch it.....

this ^ is not the same as .....

Example: You made 200k this year so were applying the 10:1 tax ratio ....so you owe us 20K ( don't we wish)

However if the original arguments said ... you are going to be taxed on the potential income you can make at work that would make sense..... say your a doctor and you can make 500K this year so bam!!! you get 50K in taxes mandatory because your capable of making that amount....

LSAT GURUS tell me what you think .... because my logic is tingling and i think somethings up lol maybe we can protest to LSAC lmaoo just joking lol

But please let me know what you guys think!

[RichardL885]

The flaw is that income is a way to get wealth. It is not a guarantee. One may have a high income with many expenses and therefore not have wealth. One may be retired with no income but have wealth from years of working.
Similarly, the acceleration is a means to go quick. It does not guarantee it. And one with a slow acceleration may go very quick after a few minutes of accelerating.