Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents [#permalink]
14 Nov 2008, 01:37
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents whose children attend private schools maintain that people making no use of a government service should not be forced to pay for it. Yet those who choose to buy bottled water rather than drink water from the local supply are not therefore exempt from paying taxes to maintain the local water supply. Roger: Your argument is illogical. Children are required by law to attend school. Since school attendance is a matter not of choice, but of legal requirement, it is unfair for the government to force some parents to pay for it twice. Which of the following responses by Gloria would best refute Roger’s charge that her argument is illogical?
(A) Although drinking water is not required by law, it is necessary for all people, and therefore my analogy is appropriate. (B) Those who can afford the tuition at a high-priced private school can well bear the same tax burden as those whose children attend public schools. (C) If tuition tax credits are granted, the tax burden on parents who choose public schools will rise to an intolerable level. (D) The law does not say that parents must send their children to private schools, only that the children must attend some kind of school, whether public or private. (E) Both bottled water and private schools are luxury items, and it is unfair that some citizens should be able to afford them while others cannot
Re: CR:ANALOGY FOR EXEMPTION [#permalink]
15 Nov 2008, 18:13
An interesting one -- the answer is A, without any doubt. In order to understand why, we have to start by understanding exactly how Roger is attacking Gloria. Without knowing that, we can't reliably determine how to refute the attack.
Gloria's argument is obviously an analogy: Her evidence is that there is nothing wrong with forcing people to pay taxes to support the local water supply, even if they choose not to buy "non-government" water instead of using the "government" supply. She concludes (by analogy) that there is nothing wrong with forcing people to pay taxes to support schools, even if they choose to buy "non-government" education instead of using the "government" schools.
Roger replies by saying that because people are forced to attend school of some type by law, those who choose not to use "government" schools must pay twice, and this is unfair. He claims that this makes Gloria's argument illogical. Because her argument was constructed by analogy, the only way to make it "illogical" would be to show that the analogy does not hold -- i.e., that the two things being compared are NOT alike in the ways that they should be alike if the argument is to work.
Therefore, when Roger claims that his statement makes Gloria's argument "illogical", he is actually claiming that the critical piece of evidence in his argument -- the fact that people are forced to attend school by law -- is NOT true for water. Choice A refutes this by pointing out that people ARE forced to drink water, although the compulsion comes from physical necessity, not from law.
Choice D is unrelated to the structure of Gloria's argument, and so it can neither refute nor support the charge of illogicality. In fact, both Roger and Gloria have accepted the truth of Choice D from the outset. Roger states it, and neither of Gloria's statements would make sense if she did not accept Choice D as true.