hazelnut wrote:
Urban planner: When a city loses population due to migration, property taxes in that city tend to rise. This is because there are then fewer residents paying to maintain an infrastructure that was designed to support more people. Rising property taxes, in turn, drive more residents away, compounding the problem. Since the city of Stonebridge is starting to lose population, the city government should therefore refrain from raising property taxes.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the urban planner's argument?
(A) If Stonebridge does not raise taxes on its residents to maintain its infrastructure, the city will become much less attractive to live in as that infrastructure decays.
(B) Stonebridge at present benefits from grants provided by the national government to help maintain certain parts of its infrastructure.
(C) If there is a small increase in property taxes in Stonebridge and a slightly larger proportion of total revenue than at present is allocated to infrastructure maintenance, the funding will be adequate for that purpose.
(D) Demographers project that the population of a region that includes Stonebridge will start to increase substantially within the next several years.
(E) The property taxes in Stonebridge are significantly lower than those in many larger cities.
To weaken an argument, you have to be clear regarding what the conclusion of that argument is. The conclusion of this argument is that the city government of Stonebridge should refrain from raising property taxes.
Thus, to weaken the argument, we need a choice that shows that even though tax increases can result in a compounding of a city’s issues related to outmigration, the conclusion that Stonebridge should refrain from raising tax rates does not necessarily follow from the premises.
(A) If Stonebridge does not raise taxes on its residents to maintain its infrastructure, the city will become much less attractive to live in as that infrastructure decays.
While this choice does not counter the idea that raising tax rates could drive people to move away from Stonebridge, it does indicate that refraining from raising rates would lead to a situation in which the attractiveness of living in Stonebridge would be decreased. A decrease in attractiveness of living in Stonebridge could influence people to move away as much as or even more than an increase in taxes would.
Therefore, as it provides a reason to question the idea that refraining from raising tax rates is the way to minimize outmigration from Stonebridge, while this choice does not destroy the argument, it does provide a reason to call the conclusion of the argument into question, and thus this choice is our weakener.
(B) Stonebridge at present benefits from grants provided by the national government to help maintain certain parts of its infrastructure.
This choice provides some indication that Stonebridge can maintain certain parts of its infrastructure without raising tax rates. However, the conclusion of the argument is not that Stonebridge needs to raise tax rates. The conclusion is that raising taxes will have a particular effect. Therefore, this choice does not affect the argument.
(C) If there is a small increase in property taxes in Stonebridge and a slightly larger proportion of total revenue than at present is allocated to infrastructure maintenance, the funding will be adequate for that purpose.
A small tax increase is still a tax increase. Thus, it could still result in people moving away from Stonebridge. Therefore, this choice does not affect the dynamic that the argument uses as evidence supporting the conclusion.
(D) Demographers project that the population of a region that includes Stonebridge will start to increase substantially within the next several years.
The fact that population of the region in which Stonebridge is located will “start to increase… within the next several years” does not clearly counter the idea that by raising tax rates Stonebridge will influence people to move away because:
- the projected population increase may not occur until some years have passed.
- it is not clear that a regional population increase will counteract the effects on Stonebridge’s population of a property tax rate increase.
Therefore, this choice does not clearly weaken the argument.
(E) The property taxes in Stonebridge are significantly lower than those in many larger cities.
This choice seems to present a fact that weakens the conclusion. The fact that property taxes in Stonebridge are significantly lower than those in many larger cities could be perceived as giving Stonebridge room to raise property tax rates without triggering further outmigration, because even if the government of Stonebridge were to increase the tax rates, the rates could still be lower than or equal to the rates of other cities.
However, there are two aspects of this choice that make it such that it does not effectively weaken the argument.
The first aspect is the use of the expression “many … cities.” That Stonebridge’s tax rates are lower than those of many cities does not mean that they are lower than those of all cities or even that they are lower than those of the majority of cities. The “many cities” with higher rates could be a small percentage of the set of all cities.
The second aspect is that regardless of whether Stonebridge’s tax rates are lower than those of other cities, increasing Stonebridge’s rates would make living in Stonebridge less attractive than it is when rates are lower.
Therefore, this choice does not undermine the idea that by increasing tax rates, Stonebridge would influence people to move away.
The correct answer is A.
close
Updated on: 16 Jun 2021, 12:19
35%
(medium)
26%
(02:20)
wrong 
