Letter to the editor: The Senate recently voted to keep the estate tax, a levy imposed on the transfer of property of the estate of a deceased person to a living person or organization. The primary argument in favor of the estate tax is that it is a necessary component of a system of progressive taxation. Not only is this argument faulty, but the estate tax is also lousy for the economy. Primarily, the estate tax directly penalizes savings and investment, two activities that are vital to create and sustain jobs. Furthermore, the estate tax undermines a strong work ethic by devaluing the link between work and reward.

In the letter to the editor, the two sections in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is a fact in support of the author’s position; the second is that position.

(B) The first is a consideration that the author argues is irrelevant; the second is a consideration in support of the author’s argument.

(C) The first is an assumption that contradicts the author’s position; the second is a premise in support of the author’s position.

(D) The first is a conclusion that stands in opposition to the author’s position; the second is the author’s position.

(E) The first is a premise that clarifies the author’s position; the second is a prediction that the author believes will hold true.

OA is D

The author believes that the estate tax has a detrimental effect on the economy. This opinion, which is conveyed in the second boldface portion, stands in contrast to the opinion of estate tax proponents (that it is a necessary component of a progressive taxation system).

(A) The first boldface portion is not a fact but an opinion cited by those in favor of the estate tax. The second boldface portion is, in fact, the author’s position that the estate tax is lousy for the economy.

(B) The author disagrees with the first boldface portion but does not argue that it is irrelevant. The second boldface portion is the author’s position itself, rather than a consideration in support of this position.

(C) The first boldface portion is not an assumption but a conclusion in favor of the estate tax. The second boldface portion is the author’s position itself, rather than a premise in support of this position.

(D) CORRECT. The first boldface portion is a conclusion in favor of the estate tax, a position that is in opposition to the author’s position. The second boldface portion is the author’s position that the estate tax is lousy for the economy.

(E) The first boldface portion does not clarify the author’s position; instead, it opposes the author’s position. The second boldface portion is not a prediction but the author’s conclusion concerning the estate tax.

how the first boldface is conclusion??
can someone explain please?

Can someone please explain how BF1 is a conclusion??Also what is a consideration in BF

jrk23 wrote:

can someone please explain how to find conclusion from this argument.?

jrk23 Which part tripped you up? Do you know the difference between a premise and counter premise? It's also important to know who's speaking.

Letter to the editor: The Senate recently voted to keep the estate tax, a levy imposed on the transfer of property of the estate of a deceased person to a living person or organization. The primary argument in favor of the estate tax is that it is a necessary component of a system of progressive taxation. Not only is this argument faulty, but the estate tax is also lousy for the economy. Primarily, the estate tax directly penalizes savings and investment, two activities that are vital to create and sustain jobs. Furthermore, the estate tax undermines a strong work ethic by devaluing the link between work and reward.

Notes
(CP?) Senate vote keep estate tax
(CP?) Senate says: necessary for prog. taxation
(C) Author: Senate argument faulty and tax bad for econ.
(P) tax penalise savings + inv.
(AP) tax weakens work ethic incentives

Analysis and Pre-Phrasing
To solve bold face questions, it is important to know who’s speaking. In this case, this stimulus is framed as a “letter to the editor”, implying that the author has an alternative position or differing opinion than what was stated by the editor’s article.

The author of this letter begins by giving context about the news regarding the Senate vote on the estate tax. The author mentions that the Senate’s argument (or claim) is that the estate tax “is a necessary component of a system of progressive taxation.” This is clearly the main claim of Senate (and likely the Senate's conclusion).

In the following sentence, the author of the letter expresses his disagreement with the Senate’s argument, claiming that its argument is “faulty” and that the tax is “lousy for the economy.” Knowing that this is the author’s conclusion helps us determine that the prior sentences are counter premises. The author then support his conclusion with two reasons: 1) the tax penalises savings and investment and 2) undermines strong work ethic. How do we know that the second bold face is the conclusion? Because we can use the 2 reasons the author presents to support the conclusion that the Senate’s argument is faulty and lousy for the economy.

As we begin to pre-think, we can be certain that:
- The first bold-face is clearly an opinion/claim (of the Senate).
- The second bold-face is another opinion/claim/conclusion (of the author of the letter).
- In relation to each other, the first and second bold-face are on “opposite” sides.

In the letter to the editor, the two sections in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is a fact in support of the author’s position; the second is that position.
The first is clearly not a fact!

(B) The first is a consideration that the author argues is irrelevant; the second is a consideration in support of the author’s argument.
Hmmm, if the first is an opinion, can it be a consideration? I suppose. Does the author argue that the consideration is irrelevant? No…the author never makes any (argumentative?) commentary about the Senate’s primary argument. Instead, the author brings up two other factors that he thinks the Senate did not consider. Also, the second bold-face is not a consideration! It’s definitely a conclusion.

(C) The first is an assumption that contradicts the author’s position; the second is a premise in support of the author’s position.
The first bold-face is definitely not an assumption. The second is NOT a premise. The premise supporting the author's conclusion/position are the last two sentences ("Primarily, the estate tax directly penalises...").

(D) The first is a conclusion that stands in opposition to the author’s position; the second is the author’s position.
Is the first a conclusion? Yes it is - at least for the Senate. Does it oppose the author’s position? Yes! Is the second bold-face the author’s position? Yes! Bingo!

(E) The first is a premise that clarifies the author’s position; the second is a prediction that the author believes will hold true.
The first could be a premise…but it does not “clarif[y] the author’s position.” In fact, it opposes the author! Also, the first is more likely to be a conclusion since it represents the Senate's main claim about estate taxes.
_________________