Q5 - A gas tax of one

[clairenlee]

I was down to the answer choices A and C and chose C, so got it right, but in my review, I found it unable to pinpoint why C is better choice over A. I think the conclusion of the argument is that raising of the gas tax "seems a perfect way to deal with the federal budget deficit" and in terms of the supporting evidence given, the author seems to be guilty of both flaws mentioned in A and C. Some clarification for the structure of the argument and for the answer choices would be very much appreciated!

[giladedelman]

Thanks for posting! I appreciate you spelling out your thought process.

This is a funny little question. The argument in favor of the 50-cent gas tax is based on two premises:

1) based on current consumption, it would raise fifty billion dollars, and
2) the decrease in demand would be good for the environment and reduce dependence on foreign oil.

But these two premises are contradictory, because if the demand decreases, then by definition consumption will not remain at its current level! That's why (C) is correct.

(A) is incorrect because I don't see any data here that's irrelevant to the argument. All the information cited is pretty clearly in support of the conclusion. What made this answer tempting to you?

[clairenlee]

Thanks so much!! It makes sense now.

I just didn't catch what was incompatible; didn't pay much attention to the word "CURRENT." And what turns out to be the second premise--the additional advantage--I read it as an irrelevant piece of info--or "irrelevant data" as in choice A--since, I thought, it doesn't seem to have much bearing on how it helps with the budget deficit and thus, doesn't support why raising the gas tax is "a perfect way to deal with the federal budget deficit." it really seemed "ADDITIONAL," extraneous to the argument. (Why is the word "additional" there?! to trick the unwary? )

[goriano]

Thanks for posting! I appreciate you spelling out your thought process.

This is a funny little question. The argument in favor of the 50-cent gas tax is based on two premises:

1) based on current consumption, it would raise fifty billion dollars, and
2) the decrease in demand would be good for the environment and reduce dependence on foreign oil.

But these two premises are contradictory, because if the demand decreases, then by definition consumption will not remain at its current level! That's why (C) is correct.

(A) is incorrect because I don't see any data here that's irrelevant to the argument. All the information cited is pretty clearly in support of the conclusion. What made this answer tempting to you?

I understand why (C) is correct. But like the original poster, I don't see why (A) isn't. Can't we consider the part about "a tax of fifty cents per gallon raising fifty billion dollars per year" irrelevant to HIS specific scenario because it explicitly states in the premises that the gas tax will result in a drop in demand? That is, the data he cites could be applicable to a different type of tax, just not the gas tax.

[WaltGrace1983]

I now understand why (C) is correct also. However, I put down (E) as the correct answer. I thought that this whole argument sounded incredibly unreasonable. The author is basically saying, "If we raise the tax, then all of this stuff is going to happen!" How do we know that? I guess the only thing that makes answer choice (E) wrong is that whole appealing to "conscience" idea. I didn't really understand how that played into it either.

Totally see why (C) is right though. Once again, these questions from the early 90s LR seem so...odd.

[Mab6q]

I think this argument has two flaws. When I did this problem, the inconsistency issue was the flaw that I saw in the argument, so C was obvious. However, I was very suspicious of his claim that because a tax of 1 cent would raise one billion, a tax of 50 cents would raise 50 billion. I ended up telling myself that it was part of the premise so we had to accept it as true.

Now, however, I think there are two flaws because that claim about the 50 billion is an intermediate conclusion.

gas tax of one cent one billion --> (therefore) a tax of fifty cents would raise 50 billion --> perfect way to deal with deficit.

tax would also decrease demand for gasoline and would be ecologically sound, and less dependent. --> perfect way to deal with deficit.

So, i believe the answer choices could've played on the false inference that was made from the 1 cent gas tax.

[uhdang]

Hi, I was rather confused with B), because current consumption rate AFTER raising tax wouldn't be the same and it does tell us an INCORRECT figure. But then, when I looked back, it wouldn't be "current" consumption rate anymore, and that's how I eliminated B). Does this sound right?

And here is the whole question breakdown.

This is a Flaw question.

Core:

Gas tax of one cent per gallon raise one billion dollars per year at current consumption rates.
==>
A tax of fifty cents per gallon would raise fifty billion dollars per year.
==>
a perfect way to deal with the federal budget deficit.

(Separate additional Info) Additional advantage of resulting drop in the demand would lead to ecologically sound and keep our country from being too dependent on foreign oil producers.

@ Current consumption rate times one cent per gallon raises billion dollars per year. In principle, raising tax, regardless of how much, would reduce the consumption rate. So, the math wouldn’t be the same as what the author is speculating. Thus, claiming for fifty billion dollars per year from raising the tax is unreasonable, and it wouldn’t be a perfect way to contribute to resolving budget deficit. Contradiction occurs in this argument because raising tax would not lead to the same consumption rate while the author is claiming for it.

===== Here are the answer analysis =====

A) Data is not irrelevant, but speculation with data is incorrect.

B) With the change in tax, current consumption rate given will change. But at the same time, it won’t be “current” consumption rate anymore. It would be a future consumption rate (which will be smaller than the current consumption rate)

C) Assumption here is that consumption rate won’t change as demand goes down. This is incompatible. Won’t work like this. (ANSWER)

D) Reverse reasoning is not happening here. Reverse of the reasoning would be something like , Solving budget deficit would lead to raising fifty billion dollars with raised gas tax to fifty cents per gallon.

E) No appeal fallacy happening here.

[JohnK403]

Thanks for posting! I appreciate you spelling out your thought process.

This is a funny little question. The argument in favor of the 50-cent gas tax is based on two premises:

1) based on current consumption, it would raise fifty billion dollars, and
2) the decrease in demand would be good for the environment and reduce dependence on foreign oil.

But these two premises are contradictory, because if the demand decreases, then by definition consumption will not remain at its current level! That's why (C) is correct.

(A) is incorrect because I don't see any data here that's irrelevant to the argument. All the information cited is pretty clearly in support of the conclusion. What made this answer tempting to you?

How is "the decrease in demand would be good for the environment and reduce dependence on foreign oil." relevant to the conclusion "it seems a perfect way to deal with the federal budget deficit.". The passage doesn't show how such two things can contribute to federal budget deficit.