In the past, every ten-percentage-point increase in cigarette prices in the country of Coponia has decreased per capita sales of cigarettes by four percent. Coponia is about to raise taxes on cigarettes by 9 cents per pack. The average price of cigarettes in Coponia is and has been for more than a year 90 cents per pack. So the tax hike stands an excellent chance of reducing per capita sales of cigarettes by four percent.The conclusion of the argument is the following:
the tax hike stands an excellent chance of reducing per capita sales of cigarettes by four percentThe support for the conclusion is the following:
In the past, every ten-percentage-point increase in cigarette prices in the country of Coponia has decreased per capita sales of cigarettes by four percent. Coponia is about to raise taxes on cigarettes by 9 cents per pack. The average price of cigarettes in Coponia is and has been for more than a year 90 cents per pack. We see that the reasoning of the argument is basically the following: Since ten-percentage-point increases in cigarette prices have caused four-percent decreases in per capita sales of cigarettes, the tax hike of 9 cents per pack will likely cause a four-percent decrease in per capita sales of cigarettes as well since 9 cents is ten percent of the current price of cigarettes, which is 90 cents.
The argument seems pretty tight, but we can notice at least a couple gaps in it.
One is that the support for the conclusion is about past increases whereas the conclusion is about a future increase, and there may be key differences between the past and future increases.
Also, the support involves the effects of price increases whereas the conclusion is about the effects a "tax hike," which may be somehow different from a price increase. Honestly, I didn't pick up on this gap when I first read the passage, but it turns out to be key to understanding the correct answer.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?This is an Assumption question, and the correct answer will state something that must be true for the evidence to effectively support the conclusion.
A. Tobacco companies are unlikely to reduce their profit per pack of cigarettes to avoid an increase in the cost per pack to consumers in Coponia.This choice is interesting.
The support for the conclusion is information about what occurred following "every ten-percentage-point increase in cigarette prices."
The conclusion is about what will occur as a result of a 9-cent "tax hike."
What we can notice is that a "tax hike" and a "price increase" are not necessarily the same thing. After all, a tax hike might not result in a price increase.
For instance, if tobacco companies reduce their profits to avoid an increase in the cost per pack, then a tax hike will not result in a price increase. Rather, following a tax hike, tobacco companies will reduce their profits to avoid a price increase, and the price of cigarettes will remain the same.
So, the argument depends on it being the case that "tobacco companies are unlikely to reduce their profit per pack of cigarettes to avoid an increase in the cost per pack to consumers in Coponia." After all, if that's not true, and they are likely to reduce their profit to avoid an increase in the cost per pack, then the tax hike will not likely cause a decrease in cigarette sales since the tax hike won't likely result in a price increase.
In other words, for the argument to work effectively, this choice must be true.
So, this choice states an assumption on which the argument depends.
Keep.
B. Previous increases in cigarette prices in Coponia have generally been due to increases in taxes on cigarettes.This choice doesn't have to be true for the argument to work.
After all, the point of the argument is simply that price increases have had a certain effect in the past, so a new price increase will likely have the same effect.
The way in which that price increase happens doesn't really matter.
After all, we have no reason to believe that people will respond to a price increase resulting from a tax hike differently from how they have responded to price increases resulting from other factors.
Since people could respond the same way regardless of what the price increase results from, the argument does not depend on the assumption that previous price increases have been due to tax hikes.
Eliminate.
C. Any decrease in per capita sales of cigarettes in Coponia will result mainly from an increase in the number of people who quit smoking entirely.This choice doesn't have to be true for the argument to work.
After all, even if a decrease in cigarette sales would result from something other than increase in the number of people who quit smoking entirely, per capita sales could still decrease as a result of the tax hike.
Eliminate.
D. At present, the price of a pack of cigarettes in Coponia includes taxes that amount to less than ten percent of the total selling price.This choice doesn't have to be true for the argument to work.
After all, regardless of what percentage of the selling price is currently represented by taxes, a ten-percent increase in the price will likely have an effect similar to the effect of other similar increases.
Eliminate.
E. The number of people in Coponia who smoke cigarettes has remained relatively constant for the past several years.This choice doesn't have to be true for the argument to work.
After all, regardless of whether the number of people who smoke has increased, decreased, or remained constant in recent years, a ten-percent increase in the price could cause whoever is smoking to smoke 4 percent less.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: (A)
23 Jun 2022, 07:54
