mahu101 wrote:
nightblade354 wrote:
A. The percentage of Romanshorn's yearly revenue that comes from money collected in entertainment taxes has steadily declined over the past decade. -- Opposite, the question says tax percentage has not decreased.
B. The amount of revenue that Romanshorn collected from entertainment taxes was lower last year than it was decade ago. -- Value has gone down on the property -- tax remains the same -- result: less money. Answer!
C. Money collected from entertainment taxes provided most of Romanshorn's revenue during the past decade -- This is never mentioned, and is completely out of scope.
D. The percentage of Romanshorn's yearly revenue that comes from money collected in entertainment taxes did not change over the past decade. -- Percentage collected has gone down, but this could be the same for everyone and every business. We cannot infer this.
E. During the past decade, Romanshorn officials increased tax rates on other sources of revenue such as retail sales and business profits. -- Never mentioned in the passage, so it is out of scope.
I think option A and option B are very close. I eventually eliminated option A because I cannot "strongly" infer that the decline was
steady. However option B i can "strongly" say that the collection was lower last year compared to what it was 10 years ago because the decline was observed over the period and there is no positive seen in the trend over a decade.
Also for Option D, I didn't think about other business. The option D statement is opposite of what is mentioned in the scenario.
Is my thought correct?
Hi
mahu101,
For these types of questions, any time you need an inference, the statement needs to be 100% true. In A, as I explained (and edited), this might not be true. There are scenarios where this argument doesn't hold up.
In D, the same thing occurs. I wouldn't say it's the opposite of the argument. The argument says taxes are X, based on property value Y. D says that the city's income from entertainment has not changed. What if other business lost more value? What if taxes increased on everyone but entertainment? The percentage would then change.
B says something we cannot refute given the information.
Does this help?