When people evade income taxes by not declaring taxable income, a vici
[#permalink]
06 Nov 2023, 19:47
The language of the argument makes it difficult to understand. So, let's unpack it step by step.
When people evade income taxes by not declaring taxable income, a vicious cycle results. Conclusion. This is causal. People evade taxes (cause) - results in a vicious cycle (effect).
Tax evasion forces lawmakers to raise income tax rates, which causes the tax burden on nonevading taxpayers to become heavier. This, in turn, encourages even more taxpayers to evade income taxes by hiding taxable income. - It just explains the vicious cycle.
Let's also unpack the question stem. "The vicious cycle described above could not result unless which of the following were true?" As mikemcgarry also explained, it is double negative. E.g., A banana is not an uncommon fruit. When we have a double negative, they cancel, creating a positive. So, the outcome is A banana is a common fruit. Likewise, in our question stem, the outcome of a double negative is in raw form: "The vicious cycle described could result if which of the following were true." or "For the vicious cycle to occur, which of the following must be true."
So, we are trying to find an assumption (assumption by its function is a strengthener)
What kind of argument are we trying to find an assumption? Causal argument.
What is an assumption in the causal argument? There is no alternate reason. If there is an option that says that the lawmakers raise the taxes because of the budget deficit. That shares an alternate reason and breaks the conclusion. So, we need to shield or safeguard the argument against this alternate cause. How can we do that? By saying, "The budget deficit is not a reason to increase the taxes.
There is another way to find an assumption, which is to reinforce the argument, which is what option C does. It says that the lawmakers did not take into account the lost revenue. Which is good for the argument, and the vicious cycle continues.
How?
For example - We have a population of 340 million, and the lawmakers plan to collect $3 trillion or more in taxes. This approximately translates to $9000 per person. So lawmakers say as everyone's average income is $100,000, they have a 9% tax (sorry, I am taking a very straightforward example. I know it's not that simple, but the discussion point here is to make us understand the issue). After a year, they found they only collected $1.5 trillion. Oh, they missed that 50% of the people in this country don't pay taxes. So now they have increased the tax to 18%. After a year, they still reach only $2 trillion. Oh, they pissed off some people with increased taxes, so now 65% of people don't pay taxes....and this cycle continues.
Instead, if the lawmakers had done the opposite, which is to consider the leakage and set the tax - that would have stopped the vicious cycle. How? Ok, we have a population of 340 million. 50% of whom we know don't pay taxes. So, the tax-paying population is 170 million. Oh, what is the unemployment rate? Say it's 5%? What percentage of people are below the poverty line? Say 10% .....blah blah....Okay, so taking variables into account, let's set the tax of 10% for this income bracket, 15% for this income bracket, ....by the way, 35% for this income bracket, and so on..,...There is a good chance that the lawmakers could break the vicious cycle.
If you have understood so far, let's look at the options -
(A) An increase in tax rates tends to function as an incentive for taxpayers to try to increase their pretax incomes. -
Negate it. An increase in tax rate doesn't work as an incentive. So, people may evade more, which will strengthen the conclusion. The assumption is something which, when negated, should shatter the conclusion and not strengthen it. At best, it is a weakener.
(B) Some methods for detecting tax evaders, and thus recovering some tax revenue lost through evasion, bring in more than they cost, but their success rate varies from year to year. This is saying some methods bring more than their cost. So, there is a net positive effect in reducing the number of tax evaders, thus avoiding the vicious cycle. In this case, the assumption will let the vicious cycle (effect) happen and not stop it. This is a straightforward weakener.
If you are in love with negation (it is not a good idea to try on every option as it wastes time. It is best to try on two final shortlisted options at max), then let's do a negation test.
Negation - No method brings more than its cost. So, there is no way to have a positive effect, so the vicious cycle will continue. Option, when negated, will be an assumption if it shatters the conclusion. Contrary to that, this strengthens it. So, it's not our assumption. Weakener.
(C) When lawmakers establish income tax rates in order to generate a certain level of revenue, they do not allow adequately for revenue that will be lost through evasion. - this is ok for the argument. It means lawmakers don't consider the loss of revenue, which is okay for the conclusion. It aids or reinforces the causal argument that tax evasion (cause) leads to a vicious cycle (effect). If we negate it, it'll shatter the conclusion. If the lawmakers consider the leakage, then the vicious cycle stops. This is our assumption as it aids or reinforces the conclusion, and its negation shatters it.
(D) No one who routinely hides some taxable income can be induced by a lowering of tax rates to stop hiding such income unless fines for evaders are raised at the same time. - The opposite of no one is some, which can be at least 2. Ok, so two people are induced by lower taxes. So what? Is that sufficient to bridge the gap? No. So the lawmakers can still increase the tax. This is out of scope.
(E) Taxpayers do not differ from each other with respect to the rate of taxation that will cause them to evade taxes. - The argument implies that they differ from each other. That's why some people get pissed off at 10%, some may at 15%, some may at 35% and so on. Had they been getting pissed off at, say, 10%, then everyone would not pay tax, and there is no cycle at all as no one now pays taxes. It weakens the conclusion.