Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents who

(B) Those who can afford the tuition at a high-priced private school can well bear the same tax burden as those whose children attend public schools.

it's irrelevant to the point that we need to make here. those whose kids go to private school are already paying the same amount as those whose kids go to public school. this is a sort of restatement of what Gloria said rather than a reply.

Posted from my mobile device

What is the source of this problem? Roger's counter-argument itself makes little sense.

Mam , this question is from 1000 series .

Hi, new user here, so forgive my inexperience. I can't seem to rule out B. Gloria starts by saying some people believe that people who are not using a public service should be exempt from paying for such public service. Then proceeds to argue buy equating public school tax to public water tax and private school use to bottle water use. Roger counters poorly saying that attendance (to any school) is required by law and private school fulfills that legal requirement. Therefore, paying for both public school tax and private school costs would be paying "twice." Glora seems to focus on the fact that if seemingly nobody complains about paying for public water and buying bottle water, then why should people complain about paying for public school and buying private school? Roger seems to think paying for both public and private school is akin to buying the same product twice from the same provider so the provider should refund one of them. Answer A is about necessity. It says since drinking water is not required, but necessary, therefore everyone should pay. But if some people get their drinking water from bottle water, then why should they pay for both public water and bottle water? This is a weak refute at best. Answer B is about price. If they can pay for private school, then they can pay for public school. These people shouldn't have a problem paying for both since they can afford it. The Question stems asks a way to refute Roger's charge that Gloria's argument is illogical. Her argument using the bottle water example: people can afford both public water and bottle water and don't seem to complain about paying for both. This centers around price. Why is Answer B ruled out, if Answer B talks more about price than Answer A? At what point am I misunderstanding this problem?

According to my understanding, the argument presented by Roger says that Water is not a necessity (legal in this case) while school education is. The reasoning is not based on price (however probable it might be in real life scenario) which is why A (water drinking as a necessity as well) is marked in the OA. Hope this helps

I am not understanding how A can be the answer?

(D) The law does not say that parents must send their children to private schools, only that the children must attend some kind of school, whether public or private.

This response directly addresses Roger's assertion that school attendance is a matter of legal requirement. Gloria points out that the law does not specifically mandate parents to send their children to private schools; it only requires that children attend some form of school, whether public or private. Therefore, the argument for tuition tax credits is based on the idea that parents should have a choice in the type of school their child attends and should not be forced to pay for public schooling if they opt for a private education.