Group 15 Question 72: A new city ordinance would place a health...

smokers advocate that the ordinance is unlawful discrimination

a) actually strengthens

b) similar to A

c doesn't weaken

I'm struck between E and D

d says cannot be challenged legally
e says can only be challenged civilly

so if it is not unlawful then it should not be challenged legally

I went for E then D then E and D now

sticking with D

very tricky question for me
_________________

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the smokers’ advocates’ argument?

A. It is illegal for the city to discriminate against citizens because of personal choices. Not our Answer (This is an opposite answer.)

B. It is illegal for the city to discriminate against citizens for health reasons. Not our Answer (This is also an opposite answer.)

C. Taxes can legally be considered discriminatory within the city’s constitution. Not our Answer ( Doesn't weaken the conclusion and is somewhat on similar lines as to what the advocate is saying.)

D. Taxes levied on non-necessary goods are passed by public referendum and cannot be challenged legally.

E. Taxes levied on non-necessary goods are passed by public referendum and can only be challenged civilly.

I am confused between D and E and as the timer had gone beyond 2 mins, I chose D.

yeah, i took way more than 2 mins as well

I was thinking that since the matter can only be challenged civilly it's not unlawful (E) makes sense but again it can't be challenged legally ( D) so it's lawful
_________________

Hatakekakashi and kntombat, I'm inclining towards C.

A and B are supporting the argument and are hence out.

D&E, IMO are not really doing anything to the argument. D & E are just talking about the proceedings (legal vs civil,etc). It's okay if I'm not allowed to present my argument in court, but does that really weaken/demerit my argument? Not really. It would have certainly been a huge dent if the smokers' lawyers planned on taking this argument to court.

C gives a picture that it is allowed to have discriminatory tax laws as per the city's constitution and hence weakens the argument.

I could be absolutely wrong here. Waiting for the OA!

Taxes can legally be considered discriminatory within the city’s constitution

That means that taxes are discriminatory and the smokers argument is that it is unfair to be discriminatory

so C actually strengthens the argument and not weaken we are asked to weaken

so the option should say that the new tax is not discriminatory
_________________

I may have misread C now i get your point. This makes sense!
_________________

Official Explanation:

Editorial: A new city ordinance would place a health and safety tax on cigarettes, with advocates arguing that the sale of cigarettes poses a public health risk to the citizens of the city who don’t smoke. Smokers’ advocates argue that this ordinance would place undue burden on smokers and is unlawful discrimination.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the smokers’ advocates’ argument?

A. It is illegal for the city to discriminate against citizens because of personal choices.
B. It is illegal for the city to discriminate against citizens for health reasons.
C. Taxes can legally be considered discriminatory within the city’s constitution.
D. Taxes levied on non-necessary goods are passed by public referendum and cannot be challenged legally.
E. Taxes levied on non-necessary goods are passed by public referendum and can only be challenged civilly.


Question Type: Weaken
Boil It Down: A new city ordinance wants to add a health and safety tax to cigarettes. Advocates of the tax believe smokers should pay to offset the damage smoking does to nonsmokers. Advocates of smokers think the tax is discrimination.
Goal: Find the option that most weakens the argument made by smoking advocates that added taxes are discrimination.

Analysis:

First, we need to find the smokers’ advocates’ argument, so we know what portion of the passage to focus on (since there are 2 arguments being made here):

Editorial: A new city ordinance would place a health and safety tax on cigarettes, with advocates arguing that the sale of cigarettes poses a public health risk to the citizens of the city who don’t smoke. Smokers’ advocates argue that this ordinance would place undue burden on smokers and is unlawful discrimination.

Now that we know which section we’re focusing on, let’s ask ourselves what would most undermine their argument? It turns out the smokers' advocates are arguing 2 main points:

Smokers’ advocates argue that
this ordinance would place undue burden on smokers --> find an option that says the ordinance would not burden smokers, or even benefit them
and
is unlawful discrimination. --> find an option that says that this type of discrimination is totally lawful and can't be legally challenged

A. It is illegal for the city to discriminate against citizens because of personal choices.
This is incorrect because this would strengthen the smokers’ claim.

B. It is illegal for the city to discriminate against citizens for health reasons.
This is incorrect because, even if smoking was considered an act defensible for health reasons, this would strengthen the smokers claim.

C. Taxes can legally be considered discriminatory within the city’s constitution.
This is incorrect because this would strengthen the smokers’ claim by providing legal basis for challenge. Remember - we have to find an option that states that the tax is legal AND cannot be challenged legally.

D. Taxes levied on non-necessary goods are passed by public referendum and cannot be challenged legally.
This is the correct answer because, if this were true, the city ordinance placing a health and safety tax on cigarettes would have been passed by public referendum (a majority vote of eligible citizens), and could not be challenged legally within the city. Smokers and their advocates would thus have no legal claim to challenge the ordinance.

E. Taxes levied on non-necessary goods are passed by public referendum and can only be challenged civilly.
This is incorrect because a civil challenge to the ordinance would not likely result in it being overturned or removed from public record.

Don’t study for the GMAT. Train for it.
_________________

Given : Smokers’ advocates argue that this ordinance would place undue burden on smokers and is unlawful discrimination.

A)Strengthens the argument as it states its illegal
B)Strengthens the argument as it states its illegal
C) Strengthens the argument as it states its discriminatory legally
D) Weakens as Taxes levied on non-necessary goods are passed by public referendum and cannot be challenged legally implies advocates cannot state it as unlawful discrimination
E) strengthens as It states it can be challenged in terms of civil rights

Thus answer is D

But in choosing either D or E, aren't we assuming that cigarettes are non-necessary goods?
I ignored option D and E on this ground.

undue burden on smokers and is unlawful discrimination.

Targeting on above sentence will weakens the CR

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the smokers’ advocates’ argument?

A. It is illegal for the city to discriminate against citizens because of personal choices.
B. It is illegal for the city to discriminate against citizens for health reasons.
C. Taxes can legally be considered discriminatory within the city’s constitution.
D. Taxes levied on non-necessary goods are passed by public referendum and cannot be challenged legally.

This weakens by saying that tax on cigrate are passed through public opinion or referendum so cannot be legally challenged
E. Taxes levied on non-necessary goods are passed by public referendum and can only be challenged civilly.

Posted from my mobile device

If D is negated, it will be "Taxes levied on non-necessary goods are passed by public referendum and can be challenged legally." If taxes can be challenged legally, then smokers’ advocates can challenge the taxes on the grounds of "unlawful discrimination". The advocates' position will be valid. On the other hand, if the taxes cannot be challenged legally, the advocates' claim of "unlawful discrimination" will not be valid.