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.

To determine the best response by Gloria, we need to identify a counterargument that directly addresses Roger’s claim that her analogy is illogical because children are legally required to attend school, unlike the optional consumption of bottled water.
Roger’s Argument

Roger asserts that Gloria’s analogy is flawed because attending school is a legal requirement, while using bottled water is not. Since school attendance is compulsory, Roger believes it is unfair for the government to force parents of private school students to pay for public schools through taxes (which he equates to "paying twice").
Analysis of the Options
(A)

"Although drinking water is not required by law, it is necessary for all people, and therefore my analogy is appropriate."
This response attempts to validate the analogy by focusing on the necessity of water. However, it does not address Roger’s main objection—that schooling is a legal requirement, while bottled water is not.
Not the best response.
(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."
This response shifts the focus to economic fairness but does not directly refute Roger’s claim about the illogical nature of the analogy.
Not the best response.
(C)

"If tuition tax credits are granted, the tax burden on parents who choose public schools will rise to an intolerable level."
This response raises a valid concern about the practical consequences of tuition tax credits but does not address Roger’s claim about the analogy being illogical.
Not the best response.
(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 challenges Roger’s argument. Roger argues that Gloria’s analogy is flawed because schooling is legally required. Gloria counters by pointing out that parents choose whether to send their children to private or public school, making the situation analogous to choosing bottled water over local water.
This is the best response.
(E)

"Both bottled water and private schools are luxury items, and it is unfair that some citizens should be able to afford them while others cannot."
This response critiques the fairness of access to private schools and bottled water but does not directly address Roger’s claim about the analogy being illogical.
Not the best response.
Correct 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."
You said:
given a
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT

Could you clarify or complete your query? It seems to be incomplete. Are you referring to a specific question, situation, or problem?
You said:
ans is a
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT

If you are saying that the answer to the previous question is (A) instead of (D), let’s evaluate (A) again in the context of the argument:
Option (A):

"Although drinking water is not required by law, it is necessary for all people, and therefore my analogy is appropriate."

This response attempts to justify the analogy by emphasizing the necessity of water for everyone. However, it does not directly address Roger’s argument that schooling is legally required, whereas bottled water is not. The key flaw in Roger’s critique is that choosing private schools is a matter of choice, not legal mandate, which is best captured by (D).

Gloria directly defends her analogy by focusing on the similarity between the two situations:
Water, though not legally required, is a necessity for everyone. Similarly, education (public or private) is a necessity for all children due to legal requirements.
The government provides a public option for both (public schools and public water supply). Choosing an alternative (bottled water or private schools) does not exempt individuals from paying for the public system.
Option A acknowledges the difference Roger highlights (schooling is legally required while water isn’t) but argues that the necessity of both services makes the analogy valid.