Politician: All nations that place a high tax on income produce thereb

Question

Politician: All nations that place a high tax on income produce thereby a negative incentive for technological innovation, and all nations in which technological innovation is hampered inevitably fall behind in the international arms race. Those nations that, through historical accident or the foolishness of their political leadership, wind up in a strategically disadvantageous position are destined to lose their voice in the world affairs. So if a nation wants to maintain its value system and way of life, it must not allow its highest tax bracket to exceed 30 percent of income.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the politician’s argument EXCEPT:

(A) The top level of taxation must reach 45 percent before taxation begins to deter inventors and industrialists from introducing new technologies and industries.

(B) Making a great deal of money is an insignificant factor in driving technological innovation.

(C) Falling behind in the international arms race does not necessarily lead to a strategically less advantageous position.

(D) Those nations that lose influence in the world community do not necessarily suffer from a threat to their value system or way of life.

(E) Allowing one’s country to lose its technological edge, especially as concerns weaponry, would be foolish rather than merely a historical accident.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

This problem is a complete conditional argument containing conditional premises and a conditional conclusion. Here is a breakdown of the argument: HT = nations that place a high tax on income, NI = negative incentive for technological innovation, FB = fall behind in the international arms race; also, wind up in a strategically disadvantageous position, LV = lose voice in world affairs. The first sentence contains two sufficient condition indicators (the word “all”) and can be diagrammed as a chain: HTNIFB. The next sentence paraphrases “fall behind in the international arms race” as “wind up in a strategically disadvantageous position” and can be diagrammed as: FBLV. Because the two statements have FB in common, a single long chain can be created: HTNIFBLV. From our discussion of conditional reasoning we know that a chain of this length contains many inferences. The conclusion, when paraphrased, tries to make a contrapositive: The phrase “nation wants maintain its value system and way of life” is a very rough equivalent of “wind up in a strategically disadvantageous position” and “lose a voice in world affairs.” The paraphrase is not a perfect equivalent because the conclusion discuses values, and the premises do not. For our purposes, we will symbolize this condition as: ~FB and ~LV. The phrase “must not allow its highest tax bracket to exceed 30 percent of income” is the equivalent 
of HT. Thus, the diagram for the conclusion is: ~FB and ~LV~HT30. Thus, based on the chain of reasoning provided, we have a reasonable conclusion, but not a perfect one because the paraphrase was not exact. The question stem is a Weaken, which means that four of the answers will weaken the argument and the one correct answer will either have no effect on the argument or will strengthen the argument.

Answer choice (A): This answer attacks the necessary condition of the conclusion by showing that taxes could exceed 30% before problems occurred.

Answer choice (B): This answer attacks the first half of the first sentence, which states that high taxes necessarily produce a negative incentive for technological innovation. Because taxes lower an individual’s income, the higher the tax, the greater the relative restriction on making money. Answer choice (B) shows that higher taxes would not necessarily produce low innovation because innovators do not care about the amount they earn.

Answer choice (C): This answer attacks the part of the argument that equates “fall behind in the international arms race” as “wind up in a strategically disadvantageous position.” If the two are not equated, then the chain of premises breaks down.

Answer choice (D): Like (C), this attacks a portion of the argument where the author equates terms. In this case, the paraphrase in the conclusion was not exact, and this answer exploits that gap.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer. The answer does not hurt the argument because the stimulus specifically states that “Those nations that, through historical accident or the foolishness of their political leadership, wind up in a strategically disadvantageous position...” So, the actual reason the nation ends up in a disadvantageous position is not critical. It could be either foolishness or historical accident. So, an answer that asserts that it is foolishness and not historical accident has no effect on the argument.

praneet87 · Answer

(A) The top level of taxation must reach 45 percent before taxation begins to deter inventors and industrialists from introducing new technologies and industries. -  This Weakens the argument as it sets the mark at 45%

(B) Making a great deal of money is an insignificant factor in driving technological innovation.  This weakens the premise on which the argument is based on

(C) Falling behind in the international arms race does not necessarily lead to a strategically less advantageous position.  Same as B

(D) Those nations that lose influence in the world community do not necessarily suffer from a threat to their value system or way of life.  Same as B

(E) Allowing one’s country to lose its technological edge, especially as concerns weaponry, would be foolish rather than merely a historical accident.

Does not weaken or have any impact on the argument. Thus is the correct choice.

abhishekdadarwal2009 · Answer

Politician: All nations that place a high tax on income produce thereby a negative incentive for technological innovation, and all nations in which technological innovation is hampered inevitably fall behind in the international arms race. Those nations that, through historical accident or the foolishness of their political leadership, wind up in a strategically disadvantageous position are destined to lose their voice in the world affairs. So if a nation wants to maintain its value system and way of life, it must not allow its highest tax bracket to exceed 30 percent of income.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the politician’s argument EXCEPT:

(A) The top level of taxation must reach 45 percent before taxation begins to deter inventors and industrialists from introducing new technologies and industries. 
This point weakens the argument as if the statement is true then the argument is weakend on its 30% claim.

(B) Making a great deal of money is an insignificant factor in driving technological innovation. 
weakens teh argument which suggest that tax is direclty relative to the technological advancement,

(C) Falling behind in the international arms race does not necessarily lead to a strategically less advantageous position. 
Although this is a blunt statement but we considera ll the choices to betrue as they are,it weakens the argument,as the arument suggest that the arms race leads to strategicall advancement.

(D) Those nations that lose influence in the world community do not necessarily suffer from a threat to their value system or way of life. 
weakens one the way of life point of the argument.

(E) Allowing one’s country to lose its technological edge, especially as concerns weaponry, would be foolish rather than merely a historical accident.

Does not weaken or have any impact on the argument. Thus is the correct choice.

Gokul20 · Answer

I do understand that E is the best answer. Here but I need help in proving C does weaken here.
My thought process is that,  falling behind in arms race  IS  a strategically disadvantageous position  and as in the option C it does not lead to that the position. So how does that weaken the conclusion ? I know I am messing up the reasoning here, but I can't figure a way out.
Experts please help !  GMATNinja   VeritasKarishma

KarishmaB · Answer

Look at how we have arrived at the conclusion - look at the link between 'high tax' and 'value system and way of life'.

High tax  hampers  tech innovation . 
 Hampered tech innovation  means  falling behind in arms race .
 Those in strategically disadvantageous position  (presumably those behind in arms race) lose  their voice in the world affairs .

Conclusion: If a  nation wants to maintain its value system and way of life  (presumably by retaining value in world affairs), it must not allow its  highest tax bracket to exceed 30 percent of income .

(A) The top level of taxation must reach 45 percent before taxation begins to deter inventors and industrialists from introducing new technologies and industries.

It brings the figure of 30% into question.

(B) Making a great deal of money is an insignificant factor in driving technological innovation.

This weakens "High tax hampers tech innovation".

(C) Falling behind in the international arms race does not necessarily lead to a strategically less advantageous position.

This weakens the relation between "Falling behind in the international arms race" and "strategically less advantageous position"

(D) Those nations that lose influence in the world community do not necessarily suffer from a threat to their value system or way of life.

This weakens the relation between "lose voice in the world community" and "suffer from a threat to their value system or way of life"

(E) Allowing one’s country to lose its technological edge, especially as concerns weaponry, would be foolish rather than merely a historical accident.

Losing tech edge would be foolish. This is irrelevant to the argument.

Answer (E)

SAMANTA8black · Answer

Thank you, VeritasKarishma, for making it clear.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Hi Gokul

Let me attempt to answer your question here. As per the stimulus:

i) High tax on income (X) --> negative incentive for technological innovation (Y) --> fall behind in the international arms race (Z).

Separately

ii) Strategically disadvantageous position (P) --> lose voice in the world affairs (Q).

Based on the above two causal relations, the conclusion drawn is that "if a nation wants to maintain its value system and way of life, it must not allow its highest tax bracket to exceed 30 percent of income".

Option (C) says: Falling behind in the international arms race -X-> strategically less advantageous position. This breaks the connection between (i) and (ii) above (since it disconnects Z and P), and thus breaks the connection between X and Q (which can only be connected through Z and P). This can now be interpreted as:

High tax on income -X-> lose voice in the world affairs. This clearly weakens the conclusion.

Hope this helps.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

Politician: All nations that place a high tax on income produce thereb

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Politician: All nations that place a high tax on income produce thereb

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards