Harsh2111s wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deductions from taxable income for donations a taxpayer has made to charitable and educational institutions. If this change were adopted, wealthy individuals would no longer be permitted such deductions. Therefore, many charitable and institutions would have to reduce services, and some would have to close their doors.
The argument above assumes which of the following?
(A) Without incentives offered by federal income tax laws, at least some wealthy individuals would not donate as much money to charitable and educational institutions as they otherwise would have.
(B) Money contributed by individuals who make their donations because of provisions in the federal tax laws provides the only source of funding for many charitable and educational institutions.
(C) The primary reason for not adopting the proposed change in the federal income tax laws cited above is to protect wealthy individuals from having to pay higher taxes.
(D) Wealthy individuals who donate money to charitable and educational institutions are the only individuals who donate money to such institutions.
(E) Income tax laws should be changed to make donations to charitable and educational institutions the only permissible deductions from taxable income.
The idea is that if wealthy individuals are no longer permitted to deduct donations from their taxes, then "many charitable and educational institutions would have to reduce services." This rests on the assumption that without the tax incentives, the wealthy individuals will not donate as much (choice A). As a result, those institutions would have less money and have to reduce services.
In order to draw the conclusion, wealthy individuals do not have to be the ONLY source of funding for those institutions. Even if donations from wealth individuals account for, say, half of the funding, if those donations are significantly reduced, the institutions would lose a lot of money. Thus, choice (B) can be eliminated.
Choice (D) can be eliminated for the same reason. Wealthy individuals do not have to be the ONLY individuals who make donations. Regardless, if the donations from just the wealthy individuals are reduced, the institutions would lose money and have to reduce services.
,
I love the way you explained negation to eliminate option B and D.
I tried the same for option A and below doubt occurred to me.
" Without incentives offered by federal income tax laws, at least some wealthy individuals
would not donate as much money to charitable and educational institutions as they otherwise would have. "
Now suppose there were 100 individual and as per option A, 10 individual (at least some) donated the as much money, still "many charitable and institutions would have to reduce services, and some would have to close their doors."
at least some- This underlined part doesn't allowing me accept A as answer.
PS
VeritasKarishma - I read your negation technique also, but I have doubt which step I did wrong ?
Both please explain.
This is the reason I am not a fan of negation technique. Test takers feel it is a mechanical way out and helps one not to think - but that is not true. It often leads to way more confusion.
Did you check my previous explanation on this?
Look at the structure of the argument:
- A proposed change would eliminate deductions from taxable income for donations.
(the donations one makes to charity are usually deducted from taxable income i.e. one doesn't need to pay tax on them. Eliminating deductions means one would need to pay tax on charity donations too)
- If this change were adopted, wealthy individuals would no longer be permitted such deductions.
(wealthy individuals would have to pay tax on donations too)
Conclusion: Many charitable and educational institutions would have to reduce services, and some would have to close their doors.
This is a big jump from eliminating deductions to charitable instis closing down their doors.
There are a few assumptions here:
1. If donations are made non deductible, some wealthy people will reduce/stop donating.
2. If wealthy people reduce/stop donating, charitable instis will not be able to manage the current services.
In simple terms, we are assuming that if donations are made non deductible, some people (perhaps even just 10 out of 100) will stop/reduce donations. Since we are concluding that there will be negative impact on making donations non deductible, we are assuming that some people will be demotivated to donate. That is all option (A) says.
(A) Without incentives offered by federal income tax laws, at least some wealthy individuals would not donate as much money to charitable and educational institutions as they otherwise would have.
Without incentives, at least some people will n to donate as much as before.
Now if you insist on negating, note what is negation of "some". It is "none"
Stmnt - Some people are A.
Negation - No people are A.
Stmnt - Without A, at least some B will not donate as much.
Negation - Without A, no B will not donate as much.
So negation of (A) is
Without incentives, none of the individuals would not donate as much money to charitable and educational institutions as they otherwise would have.
This means all will donate as much.
(Note the double negative - "no one will not donate as much as before" becomes "all will donate as much as before" )
If all will donate as much as before, then we should have no negative impact and our conclusion falls apart.
Hence (A) is an assumption.
close
07 Apr 2019, 00:29
