Fares on the city-run public buses in Greenville are subsidized by cit

Am having a hard time with option D

So the question is asking for strengthening the argument => provide additional premise supporting the fare increase.

How is the data provided in D supporting this ? Voters in the city who support low-fares are opposed to taxes ??? So what ? Does this mean because they oppose taxes, to kick their butt the fares have to be increased ?? Not sure

the question talks about which of the options doesn't weaken the argument but not which option strengthens

D is certainly a good answer here, since it doesn't weaken the argument - it's not especially relevant to the logic of the argument.

Still, it's a very odd question, because of answer choice C. Paraphrasing the argument in the stem, the argument goes like this:

'taxes should be spent on things that benefit the people who actually pay the taxes'

and concludes that, since many using the bus don't pay taxes, that taxes should not be used to pay for the bus.

Then answer choice C says: 'if bus fares are raised, the people who *don't* pay taxes (they're 'exempt') will be hurt'. Well, the entire point of the argument is that tax money should not be spent to benefit those who don't pay taxes. To weaken the argument, we need to establish that the plan would disadvantage people who *do* pay taxes, not those who don't. So C doesn't weaken the argument at all. It's immaterial that the councillors all agree that these tax exempt citizens should be helped; that just means that they will need to weigh two factors (the force of the argument, and their desire to help people who would be hurt because of the argument's conclusion) when deciding on their policy.

I'm curious where the question is from.
_________________

Ya i got (d).
The question asks us to weaken "except" which means that four WRONG options will weaken the argument and one RIGHT will either strengthen or will be irrelevant.
Conclusion:bus fares should be raised enough to cover the cost of the service.Weaken>>bus fares should not be raised.

a. rellocation of businesses is not favourable to the city.Good enough reason of not increasing the bus fares.
b. air pollution .WEAKEN
c. everyone agrees that low income brcket citizens should be exempt.So increasing bus fares is not a good idea.
d. CORRECT>IRRELEVANT>Voters are against the increase.WHO CARES?that does not mean that the increase of bus fares is not a good idea or that it should not be done!.
e. people who work pay the taxes.WEAKEN.

ANS:(D).Hope its clear now

D is right. Here is why C is wrong. "...taxes should be used "primarily" to benefit the people who pay them..." is based on the assumption that people who don't pay taxes should benefit second. If it said "only" then C would be right. Consider that primarily means "for the most part or first" which is a definition. This assumes that there is a secondary. So, taxes should be used primarily to benefit the people who pay them and secondary to benefit the people that don't.

Contenders D and E
Basically the argument is saying that prices should go up to make the system fair for the taxpayers [note: not voters]

Now, whether VOTERS like the proposal or not, does not have any bearing on the FAIRNESS of the proposal. Additionally, D says, VOTERS dislike the TAX increase, not FARE increase. No one is proposing TAX increase. Hence, D is out of scope and non-weakener, making it the correct answer.

However, to make E a weakener, we have to assume that all the out-of-town workers earn wages above the nationally mandated minimum, which makes them subject to the city wage tax of 5 percent and makes their availing of subsidized bus fare FARE. [I don't like when I have to assume an extra thing to make something fit]

Having said that, D is obviously an absolute non-weakener. Hence the better choice of the two.

Thoughts?

contenders are D & E, understood how D does not weaken but how can we rule out E?

Hi Sunny,

E says out-of-town workers who earn wages above the nationally mandated minimum, DO have to pay the city wage tax of 5 percent. Hence these out-of-towners ARE, in fact, contributing towards the city tax revenues which subsidized city-run public buses.

Since they pay, they are entitled to the benefit.


Cheers
RzS

Hi,
Thanks for the reply. I have a question-
People who work in Greenville and earn wages....how can we assume that they are out of town workers.In the premise , we have - but among the beneficiaries of the low fares are many people who commute from outside the city to jobs in Greenville. But does this mean that whoever work in Greenville are out of town workers.

Hi,
We are not assuming what you said. The city public buses are for both the Greenville workers and those residing out of town. But since the city buses are funded by the city tax revenues, which in turn is due to the taxes paid by the residents, Counselor argues that the non tax payers(those who are travelling from outside the city) are also enjoying the low fare, whereas only the taxpayers(residents of Greenville) should be benefited. So, to hinder the free-loaders(or the low fare loaders) the counselor wants to increase the fare.

E says the affluent are already paying 5% taxes, implying city taxes will suffice the funding of bus services.-weaken
D : In case the fare is not increased, the counselor may resort to increasing the tax to cover the cost of service. Now the choice D makes sense that voters are against the tax increase- Doesn't weaken the conclusion.
_________________

(C) Increasing transit fares would disadvantage those residents of the city whose low incomes make them exempt from city taxes, and all city councilors agree that these residents should be able to take advantage of city-run services.

VeritasKarishma Can you please let me know why is Option C not correct here? I was confused between Option C and D. And ended up selecting C.

I know we are referring to a different set of people in Answer Option C but then this a very reason to weaken the author's argument.

OA From PS Forum:

WeakenX. The correct answer choice is (D)

In this stimulus, the author tells us that although city taxes subsidize Greenville public bussing, the buses benefit outside commuters as well, so some city councilors suggest increasing fares to cover the cost of the service. However, some city councillors argue for raising the fares, on the basis that "taxes should be used primarily to benefit the people who pay them."

The question which follows the stimulus is a Weaken Except question, which means that the four incorrect answer choices will weaken the councillors' argument, and the correct answer choice will not weaken it. The first and most obvious line of attack would be to find and eliminate answers that show that the outside commuters do indeed pay taxes (and indeed several answers play on this approach) or that such a plan would have general negatives that would hurt the city on the whole. In other words, eliminate any answer that hurts the argument of the city councillors, and look for an answer that is irrelevant or strengthens the argument.

Answer choice (A): Because businesses in the city are also taxpayers, this answer shows that that raising the fares would hurt a group of taxpayers. In addition, there would be a general loss of benefit to the citizens of the city if businesses left. Thus, this answer choice weakens the argument and is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice also weakens the argument that fares should be increased, by pointing out another detrimental result associated with the councillors' suggested plan. Thus, this answer choice weakens the argument and is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice at first appears irrelevant because the low income residents don't pay taxes, and thus one might initially think that this answer is correct. However, the second half of the answer shows that "all city councilors agree" that these residents should be able to use the buses without disadvantage. Thus, if adopted, this answer would place the "some city councillors" from the stimulus in a contradictory position (as far as their stated goals here for low income residents to take advantage of the services vs the results of their plan which disadvantages low income residents), and that would weaken the argument. This is a very tricky and very well-placed answer (just before the correct answer), evocative of recent Logical Reasoning questions.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. This choice fails to weaken the argument advanced in the stimulus, because voter preference about increasing local taxes is irrelevant—there is no tax increase even being suggested! The suggestion is to raise bus fares. Additionally, the opinions ("preferences") in this answer do not attack the facts cited above. Since this answer choice has no effect on the strength of the councillors' argument, this is the correct answer choice to this Weaken Except question.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice weakens the argument because it shows that those "outsiders" who commute into Greenville do in fact pay taxes to cover the services they use, and thus they would qualify as as people who should benefit from them. Note how carefully the stimulus worded the issues: they never used "residents," they simply used "people who pay them (taxes)." This answer then shows that the commuters are actually taxpayers, and consequently the city taxes would be used to benefit those who pay them. As this is the very basis of the councillors' objection to the subsidy, this answer would undermine their objection.

I think you are mistaken in saying that “Not Weaken” = Strengthen.
Not weaken is just that… “not weaken”..it may strengthen the argument, but then it may also be neutral. And that is what option D is doing. Staying neutral..rest all are weakeners.



Posted from my mobile device

Fares on the city-run public buses in Greenville are subsidized by city tax revenues, but among the beneficiaries of the low fares are many people who commute from outside the city to jobs in Greenville. Some city councilors argue that city taxes should be used primarily to benefit the people who pay them, and therefore that bus fares should be raised enough to cover the cost of the service.

Each of the following, if true, would weaken the argument advanced by the city councilors EXCEPT:

(A) Many businesses whose presence in the city is beneficial to the city’s taxpayers would relocate outside the city if public-transit fare were more expensive. - WRONG.

(B) By providing commuters with economic incentives to drive to work, higher transit fares would worsen air pollution in Greenville and increase the cost of maintaining the city’s streets. - WRONG.

(C) Increasing transit fares would disadvantage those residents of the city whose low incomes make them exempt from city taxes, and all city councilors agree that these residents should be able to take advantage of city-run services. - WRONG. Weakens

(D) Voters in the city, many of whom benefit from the low transit fares, are strongly opposed to increasing local taxes. - CORRECT. Voters opinion/intent is not concerned. It's irrelevant as it neither strengthens not weakens the argument. Most importantly who are these voters - taxpayers or non taxpayers, commuters or non-commuters. For this reason this is not good enough a choice that impact the argument.

(E) People who work in Greenville and earn wages above the nationally mandated minimum all pay the city wage tax of 5 percent. - WRONG. So they do get some benefit and more is required. But if fares are increased it could have an impact on these people which might lead to a loop in which taxes keep on increasing along with fares.

Answer D.
_________________

E does not say anything about the out-of-town workers, E just talks about people who work in Greenville.

In my opinion, this is a bad question as there is no clear answer.