by ohthatpatrick Sat Sep 13, 2014 8:59 pm
First of all, you wrote that (B) was incorrect, but you meant (C), I think.
(B) is the correct answer.
It seems like the quote confused you.
Strongwood's party's study said
"lower capital gains tax --> higher federal deficit"
and then he says
"lower taxes --> lose revenue"
These don't contradict; they go hand in hand.
The federal deficit is the idea of how much money the government owes other people. The more money the government makes, the more money it has to pay off its debts, so the lower it makes the federal deficit.
When you cut taxes, the government makes less money, so it has LESS revenue, LESS money to pay back its debts, which leads to HIGHER deficits (MORE money still owed to other people).
Does that make sense?
Here's a simplified version of the argument, now that you know that "government losing revenue = higher federal deficit".
Strongwood:
A study conducted by my party concluded that "lower tax --> higher federal deficit". Meanwhile, the administration's study concluded the contrary (i.e. that lower tax --> does NOT reduce federal deficit). Hence, this tax proposal is now dead. After all, why would anyone vote to INCREASE the federal deficit?
How do Senators know that cutting the capital gains tax would increase the federal deficit?
They don't!
If they believe the study conducted by Strongwood's party, then cutting the tax WOULD increase the deficit.
But if they believe the administration's study, then cutting the tax would NOT increase the deficit.
This is a recurring LSAT pattern: two studies come to different conclusions and an author arbitrarily chooses to believe one rather than the other. (sometimes the author arbitrarily believes that the more recent study must be "more correct').
(B) is the correct answer because in order for Strongwood to think the plan to reduce the tax is dead, he has to believe that Senators will see it as something that increases the deficit. Well in order to believe that, he as to believe that Senators trust the party's study more than the administration's.
=== other answers ==
(A) We don't have to go to this "Fake Opposite". All we talked about was that Lower Tax --> Increase Deficit. You can't accuse him of believing the illegal negation of that.
(C) He never "expressly stated" that his opponents lack common sense. There's some implied sarcasm when you say "hooray for common sense", but "expressly" means "explicitly". Can't justify that.
(D) He assumes that senators will rarely vote to increase the deficit. Can we make a leap that "increases the deficit" --> "unpopular legislation"? No, those are too different to equate. People often LOVE tax breaks, so measures that increase the deficit can nonetheless be very popular.
(E) This is really close to (B). It's hard to initially choose which is more apt. One good way to filter is to remember that extreme language is a big red flag with Necessary Assumption. Does Strongwood have to assume that ANY study by his party MUST be more objective than one by the administration?
No. He doesn't even necessarily need to believe that THIS study is more objective. His argument only cares about what the senators believe, about which study the senators think is correct.
Hope this helps.
