A gas tax of one cent per gallon would raise one billion dollars per

IMO C.

In this CR, I see the options as,
A - Cannot say that author cites irrelevant data - Increase in price by 1 cent will result in x amount. Increase in price by 50x cent will result in 50x amount - I see this is relevant. Also, price rise will reduce usage is also relevant. - Incorrect
B - Cannot say this.. - Incorrect
C - Assumptions are wrong - Even a 1 cent increase will reduce consumption, at the same time 50 cent increase will not reduce consumption. So the author may not be able to comment on the consumption and ecological point.
D - I initially thought of this - but later realized wrong - Incorrect.
E - Incorrect.

Reasoning for C:

Assumption 1: When Tax increases, the consumption remaining the same, the overall Tax collected would increase and hence the budget deficit issue resolved.

If consumption reduces, even though the Tax per Unit has increases there is no guarantee, the overall Tax will increase.

Assumption 2: When Tax increases, the consumption will reduce and hence the use of fuel and our dependency on other countries for fuel will deduce.

Assumption-1 and Assumption-2 are incomparable.

C seems to win by POE.
D is good distraction though, since mostly flaw questions mess up with cause and effect. But on close observation we can see that the cause and effect are not reversed.
Increase in taxes causes increased federal revenue.
Increase in taxes may cause people to decrease gasoline consumption.
Hence cause and effect are correctly stated.

Author seems to assume to polar opposite aspects of an effect.
First he considers with increase in tax budget deficit will decrease ie. he assumes people will continue buying at the same rate as they are buying now.
Second is With increase in tax , people will consume less gas and hence therefore decrease the foreign dependency on the gas..
Hence, for the same cause he assumes to polar opposite assumptions.

Hence the answer is C.

A gas tax of one cent per gallon would raise one billion dollars per year at current consumption rates. Since a tax of fifty cents per gallon would therefore raise fifty billion dollars per year, it seems a perfect way to deal with the federal budget deficit.
Assumption#1: The price increase would not decrease the demand.

This tax would have the additional advantage that the resulting drop in the demand for gasoline would be ecologically sound and would keep our country from being too dependent on foreign oil producers.
Assumption#1: There will be decrease in the demand.

Which one of the following most clearly identifies an error in the author‟s reasoning?

(A) The author cites irrelevant data.

(B) The author relies on incorrect current consumption figures.

(C) The author makes incompatible assumptions.

(D) The author mistakes an effect for a cause.

(E) The author appeals to conscience rather than reason.

The answer C is perfect here. The thought process is as follows.

1. Option A: An irrelevant data is clearly irrelevant to this question

2. Option B: We do not what the current or the old consumption figures, hence irrelevant.

3. Option E: Appeals to conscience rather than reason. This option is irrelevant or beyond the scope.

Left are C and D.

C: Author make incorrect assumptions- [Keep]- reasoning being... as the demand for gasoline decreases, then people would start using fewer liters of gas and hence less revenue generation. Goal unachived.

D: Option D: May be kind of true, but what is effect and what is the cause? Out of scope.

C is best.


Plan: At current consumption rate, a tax of fifty cents per gallon would raise fifty billion dollars per year
Goal: deal with the federal budget deficit

Assumption: consumption remains same.

Additional advantage: resulting drop in the demand for gasoline would be ecologically sound and would keep our country from being too dependent on foreign oil producers. This advantage will contradict the assumption as decrease in demand means decrease in consumption and hence decrease in revenues. So plan won't meet the goal.

Hence, C

the conclusion here:
GT of 50c - perfect way to deal with FBD.
this will lead to lower demand and thus, preserve the nature and reduce the dependence on foreign oil.

the flaw here is that the author makes 2 incompatible assumptions. it is mentioned "current consumption rates", thus, if the demand decreases, there is NO WAY to make 50B $ from the tax.

Which one of the following most clearly identifies an error in the author‟s reasoning?

(A) The author cites irrelevant data.
we cannot say that.

(B) The author relies on incorrect current consumption figures.
current consumption is not at issue here.

(C) The author makes incompatible assumptions.
exactly! gvt wants to make 50B $ (at current consumption), while wanting to decrease the demand.

(D) The author mistakes an effect for a cause.
what is the effect? dropped demand? what is the cause? 50b $? can't figure out which is which, and C is way better than this one.

(E) The author appeals to conscience rather than reason.
no, he does reason, stating facts!!! but the way of thinking is flawed.

A gas tax of one cent per gallon would raise one billion dollars per year at current consumption rates. Since a tax of fifty cents per gallon would therefore raise fifty billion dollars per year, it seems a perfect way to deal with the federal budget deficit. This tax would have the additional advantage that the resulting drop in the demand for gasoline would be ecologically sound and would keep our country from being too dependent on foreign oil producers.

Which one of the following most clearly identifies an error in the author's reasoning?


(A) The author cites irrelevant data. whether the data is irrelevant is not correct point because the data provided is not the basis for reaching the conclusion.

(B) The author relies on incorrect current consumption figures.
we don't know whether if the figures are wrong or not.

(C) The author makes incompatible assumptions. correct answer

(D) The author mistakes an effect for a cause. the cause and effect case is not true in our scenario.

(E) The author appeals to conscience rather than reason. clearly out of scope.

Between C and B,

B would be wrong if the figure of 1B would be incorrect or there would be something to suggest that no drop in demand.

C is correct because the author citing the 1B additional tax revenue assumes that a similar pattern (say a liner demand curve) would hold. However, in reality the demand curve could fall exponentially for all we know.

Hence the assumption to travel to 50B figure from 1B figure is suspect.

Answer C

Posted from my mobile device

Understanding the argument -
A gas tax of one cent per gallon would raise one billion dollars per year at current consumption rates. - Premise/Opinion.
Since a tax of fifty cents per gallon would raise fifty billion dollars per year, it seems a perfect way to deal with the federal budget deficit. - Premise + opinion. But the premise is derived from the earlier premise. So the author assumes that if we raise the gas tax by one cent, we can raise 1 Bn; likewise, raising it to 50, 75, or 100 will lead to 50 bn, 75 bn, or 100 bn, respectively. So, the author is assuming that the consumption pattern will stay the same. What if the consumption reduces, then after increasing by 50 cents, it may for example lead to just two bn instead of 50? So, the author has made this assumption here.

Conclusion - "It seems to be a perfect way to deal with the federal budget deficit."

This tax would have the additional advantage that the resulting drop in the demand for gasoline would be ecologically sound and would keep our country from being too dependent on foreign oil producers. - ok, now it talks about additional benefits to strengthen our conclusion, which is "it seems a perfect way to deal with the federal budget deficit"
Drop-in demand for Gasoline would be
1. Ecologically sound
2. Reduce dependence on foreign oil.

So now it says that the demand will drop. Ok. So, earlier, we assumed that demand would remain the same. Then, we cited additional benefits to strengthen our conclusion that the demand would reduce, which contradicts what C highlights. The word "incompatibility" because, in conclusion, "it seems a perfect way to deal with the federal budget deficit." First, we assumed there would be no drop in consumption, but then we added a strengthening premise that there would be a drop in consumption. So, the flaw is that this assumption is incompatible with the premises stated in the argument.

Option Elimination. -

(A) The author cites irrelevant data. - No. Facts respected.

(B) The author relies on incorrect current consumption figures. - No. Facts respected.

(C) The author makes incompatible assumptions. - ok.

(D) The author mistakes an effect for a cause. - No. The effect of "reduction in Federal Deficit" is not mistaken as a cause that is not mentioned in the argument. An increase in tax collision can lead to a reduction in the Federal Deficit, but no specific cause of the Federal Deficit is stated in the argument.

(E) The author appeals to conscience rather than reason. - out of scope.

How is the line that the demand will decrease an assumption when it is clearly stated? An assumption is something that is assumed and not clearly stated. Please guide here.