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]
31 Jul 2004, 19:14
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
HideShow timer Statictics
Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents whose children attend private schools maintain that people making no use of 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) Altough drinking water is not required by law, it is necessary for all people and therefore my analogy is appropriate.
B) Those who can affored the tuition at a high price 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.
Pls explain your reasoning. I'm kinda lost with what Roger is saying: "BUt of legal requirement it is unfair for the government to force some parents to pay for it twice".
Essentially, D says that it was matter of choice only. While local supply water is available, people drink bottled water and pay taxes for it - for whatever be thier reason. Similarly, putting their children inPrivate school was also their choice, knowing well that tax is not exempted.
Agree with D although A was a tough diversion.
Essentially, even though A is true, it does not change the fact that going to school is still the law and the argument could still stand true since there is a fundamental difference between the two examples:
The first is required by law
The second is not required by law
Although both are a necessity. _________________
Re: CR - Hard Question - Private Schools...... [#permalink]
04 Aug 2004, 01:02
I also chose A
Paraphrashing Gloria's arg:
children->private school->parents -> tax credit (not using govt services)
people->bottled water->no credit (not using govt services)
Hence she emphasizes inconsistency in the system
Paraphrasging Roger's response:
school is a legal req->tax credit makes sense
But what about water?
If Gloria can prove that water is also a basic req and is as important as education -> credit shud be given for water as well based on Roger's logic. This is exactly stated in A where she uses Roger's logic to refute Roger's charge that her argument is illogical
In D, if the law/govt does not say that parents must send their children to private schools and that the children must attend some kind of school, whether public or private, then why is the govt giving tax credit for parents sending their children to private schools? Going by this logic, the Govt shudn't be giving any credit to these parents.
Re: CR - Hard Question - Private Schools......
04 Aug 2004, 01:02