WillGetIt
Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is to tax them in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes. Therefore, the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.
Which of the following is an assumption of the economist's argument?
(A) Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.
(B) Country Y's air pollutant emissions would not fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.
(C) Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in air pollutant emissions.
(D) Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiency.
(E) Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting fixed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.
ID - CR09151
Reducing Air Pollution
Step 1: Identify the Question
The word assumption in the question stem indicates that this is an Assumption question.
Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument
E: tax pollutants in prop. to damage = MOST cost eff
BUT: Y: oppose taxes + many pollutants unreg.
→ best way in Y = upper limits, NOT tax
On the one hand, the author believes that the most economically efficient way to reduce air pollution is to tax emissions. However, he argues that this won’t be effective in Country Y. In Country Y, it will be more effective to institute fixed upper limits for pollutant emissions. The evidence for this is that Country Y’s policy makers oppose new taxes, and serious pollutants are not currently taxed or regulated.
Step 3: Pause and State the Goal
On Assumption questions, the goal is to identify an assumption that is critical to the logic of the argument. The right answer will be a statement that the author must believe to be true in order to logically draw the conclusion. In this case, the conclusion is that, in Country Y, the best approach to reducing air pollution is instituting fixed upper limits. What else must be true, in order to logically conclude that this is the best approach?
Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right
(A) This doesn’t have to be true. For instance, policy makers in Country Y could vehemently oppose new taxes on pollutants, but only mildly oppose new income taxes. In this scenario, the conclusion would still be reasonable.
(B) This is a strengthener, since it implies that taxation would be unsuccessful for another reason, beyond the reasoning already provided in the argument. However, an assumption must make a statement that has to be true, not just one that strengthens the argument. This answer choice, logically, could be false even while the argument is still valid. To prove this, try the negation test: Country Y’s emissions would fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage. In this case, the conclusion of the argument could still be true, because fixed upper limits could still be a better method for other reasons.
(C) This answer seems to imply that policy makers in Country Y will be more willing to accept policies that reduce pollutant emissions in general. However, it does not support one method of reduction over another. The conclusion specifically states that one method is better than the other method in Country Y, so this answer choice does not directly affect the conclusion.
(D) If this were true, the conclusion would be less logically sound. If policy makers in Country Y mostly cared about economic efficiency, they would probably prefer taxes over fixed upper limits, since taxes are described as the most economically efficient method.
(E) CORRECT. The author concludes that the best way to reduce pollution in Country Y is to institute fixed upper limits on emissions. In order to accept this conclusion, the author must assume that policy makers in Country Y will not oppose these upper limits—or, at least, that they will not oppose them as strongly as they oppose new taxes.
The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is to tax them in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.
But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated,
Policy makers strongly oppose new taxes.
Conclusion: Best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.
The premises give us that the most economically efficient way is plan A. But policy makers in country Y are against using A.
So the author concludes that best way to reduce pollutants in country Y is plan B.
(Mind you, in other countries, plan A might be the best. But in country Y, because policy makers are against plan A, he says plan B is the best)
What is he assuming? That policy makers will not be against plan B. That is why it is best for country Y. It has to do with the preferences of the policy makers of country Y.
(A) Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.We know that they oppose new taxes. Whether they oppose all new taxes equally strongly is irrelevant. The author proposes a different plan which doesn't involve any taxes.
(B) Country Y's air pollutant emissions would not fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.Not correct. The author says that this plan A is the most economically efficient so he likely believes that air pollutant emissions WILL fall significantly if they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. He proposes plan B only because policy makers do not like plan A.
Not an assumption.
(C) Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in air pollutant emissions.Irrelevant. The argument says that the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be plan B. We do not care whether policy makers are aiming to reduce air pollution or not. The point is that if they were aiming to reduce air pollution, then plan B is the best. It is similar to a conditional conclusion. To achieve this, do that. If you want to achieve this, do that. Whether you actually want to achieve it or not is not in the scope of the argument.
(D) Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiency.
The author is not assuming that policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiency. In fact he suggests that they don't believe this because they are against new taxes. So they are against the plan that has maximum economic efficiency.
(E) Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting fixed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.
Correct. The author assumes that the best plan for country Y is plan B. It means he is assuming that country Y policy makers will be more open to setting fixed upper limits than to introducing new taxes.
Answer (E)Another assumption question discussion:
https://youtu.be/QoIAgREUfk0
04 Dec 2024, 00:25 
