nik1608nik wrote:
While Governor Verdant has been in office, the states budget has increased by an average of 6 percent each year. While the previous governor was in office, the states budget increased by an average of 11.5 percent each year. Obviously, the austere budgets during Governor Verdants term have caused the slowdown in the growth in state spending.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?
(A) The rate of inflation in the state averaged 10 percent each year during the previous governors term in office and 3 percent each year during Verdants term.
(B) Both federal and state income tax rates have been lowered considerably during Verdants term in office.
(C) In each year of Verdants term in office, the states budget has shown some increase in spending over the previous year.
(D) During Verdants term in office, the state has either discontinued or begun to charge private citizens for numerous services that the state offered free to citizens during the previous governors term.
(E) During the previous governors term in office, the state introduced several so-called austerity budgets intended to reduce the growth in state spending.
Can anyone help me in the same?
Yes, I can help. OK let's do it!
Conclusion: Austere B of New G ---> Slowdown in growth in spending.
Premise: New G, B +6%, Old G B +11.5%
So this is basically saying that since the budget increased less then the new governor is also spending less money.
Which will weaken?
Sounds like we need to find a reason to show why despite an declining budget the amount of spending has not decreased at all.
(A) The rate of inflation in the state averaged 10 percent each year during the previous governors term in office and 3 percent each year during Verdants term. ---->
So this basically says that if inflation was higher previously then this may be the the reason why state budgets were higher during that time. So the fact that we have a lower budget now is explained by some other reason. So the use of this piece of evidence to prove that the G is spending less is not precise. We'll leave this one in(B) Both federal and state income tax rates have been lowered considerably during Verdants term in office --->
OK, so taxes are lowered, this could mean with have more or less budget, we don't know depends on laffer curve, so this tells us nothing(C) In each year of Verdants term in office, the states budget has shown some increase in spending over the previous year-->
OK this is the past, we don't really care what happened(D) During Verdants term in office, the state has either discontinued or begun to charge private citizens for numerous services that the state offered free to citizens during the previous governors term.-->
OK so if they provide less free services they should have a higher budget, well it seems that it is not working for some reason, but again this doesn't really tells us anything(E) During the previous governors term in office, the state introduced several so-called austerity budgets intended to reduce the growth in state spending.--->
So old G introduced measures to reduce growth in spending. This is again something that happened in the past and does not really give us much information.So I will go with (A)
Hope it helps!
Cheers!
J
Kudos please!