Conclusion: The saved money due to automation will be not be much more because of the taxes and compensation.
premise:However, many workers who lose their jobs to automation will need government assistance to survive, and the same corporations that are laying people off will eventually pay for that assistance through increased taxes and unemployment insurance payments.
Assumption:
1. The saved cost will be nullified by the taxes and insurance that the company has to pay.
2. The fired people might cannot be employed again.
Question: Strengthen
Why correct?A) Some strengtheners can be slightly modified assumptions. supports 2nd assumption. If people are unable to find jobs after automation, the taxes and assitance can prolong which will lessen the profit.
Why wrong? B) losing profit by not automating may weaken the argument. Additionally, profits might still decline due to taxes and assistance.
C) This means taxes will be shared and the companies will bear less cost and have some profit. so automating will not make them less profitable as the argument say. Weakener
D) The less pay is not covered by the companies in some form of assistance as per the info in the argument, hence this is irrelevant to the argument that companies will have less profit when they remove people.
E) The option says capital investment is higher than short term profit but doesn't talk anything about whether taxes and assistance eat up the profit from automation. Hence, irrelevant
Why did i get it wrong?
seemed like earlier question which i had solved earlier so selected teh option even though it was weakening it.