Politician: Requiring city residents to pay taxes to subsidize the cit

Question

Politician: Requiring city residents to pay taxes to subsidize the city's public transportation system is not at all unfair, even if they do not all personally use public transportation. Because public transportation allows many people to avoid driving, fewer cars are on the road. This means cleaner air and less traffic congestion, which benefit all city residents.

Which of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion of the politician's argument to be properly drawn?

(A) It is fair to require everyone who benefits from public transportation to pay taxes to subsidize it.

(B) People who use public transportation do not derive significant benefits from others' use of private transportation.

(C) People living outside the city limits also use the city's public transportation system on a regular basis.

(D) For most city residents, the main benefit of public transportation is cleaner air and less traffic congestion.

(E) The fairness of a proposed tax is only one of the factors that a city should consider before imposing it on users and nonusers of public transportation.

MartyMurray · Accepted Answer

Politician: Requiring city residents to pay taxes to subsidize the city's public transportation system is not at all unfair, even if they do not all personally use public transportation. Because public transportation allows many people to avoid driving, fewer cars are on the road. This means cleaner air and less traffic congestion, which benefit all city residents.

The politician has concluded the following:

Requiring city residents to pay taxes to subsidize the city's public transportation system is not at all unfair, even if they do not all personally use public transportation.

The support for the conclusion is the following:

Because public transportation allows many people to avoid driving, fewer cars are on the road. This means cleaner air and less traffic congestion, which benefit all city residents.

We see that the politician's reasoning is that, because public transportation results in benefits to all city residents, requiring city residents who don't use public transportation to pay taxes to subsidize the city's public transportation system is fair.

Which of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion of the politician's argument to be properly drawn?

This is an Assumption question, and the correct answer will be a statement that must be true for the premises of the argument to effectively support the conclusion.

(A) It is fair to require everyone who benefits from public transportation to pay taxes to subsidize it.

This choice is exactly what we need.

The support for the conclusion is basically that public transportation benefits all city residents.

The conclusion is "Requiring city residents to pay taxes to subsidize the city's public transportation system is not at all unfair, even if they do not all personally use public transportation."

We see that the argument jumps from saying that public transportation benefits everyone to concluding that it's therefore fair to tax everyone to support it. For the evidence to support the conclusion, benefits everyone must be connected to fair to tax everyone.

For that connection to work, it must be true that it is fair to require everyone who benefits from public transportation to pay taxes to subsidize it.

After all, if it were NOT fair to require everyone who benefits from public transportation to pay taxes to subsidize it, then the argument wouldnt work. After all, in that case, the fact that everyone benefits from public transportation would not mean that it's fair to require everyone to pay taxes to subsidize it.

Thus, this choice is necessary for the conclusion to be properly drawn from the premises.

Keep.

(B) People who use public transportation do not derive significant benefits from others' use of private transportation.

This choice is a little hard to eliminate because, if it's true, then the case for the conclusion is a little more convincing. After all, if people who use public transportation do not derive significant benefits from others' use of private transportation but, as the passage suggests, people who use private transportation do derive significant benefits from others' use of public transportation, then taxing private transportation users to subsidize public transportation seems fair because it appears to balance things out in a way.

At the same time, we can eliminate this choice because we aren't looking for something that makes the argument more convincing. We need a choice that's necessary for the argument to work, and this choice isn't necessary.

After all, even if people who use public transportation  do  derive significant benefits from others' use of private transportation, it could still be fair to tax those who don't use public transportation if they benefit from it.

Eliminate.

(C) People living outside the city limits also use the city's public transportation system on a regular basis.

This choice is not necessary for the argument to work.

After all, even if nobody living outside the city limits uses the city's public transportation system, it could be fair to tax residents of the city who don't use it but benefit from it.

Eliminate.

(D) For most city residents, the main benefit of public transportation is cleaner air and less traffic congestion.

This choice is a little tricky to eliminate because that fact that, for most city residents, the main benefit of public transportation is cleaner air and less traffic congestion could be seen as indicating that much of the reason why public tranportation exists is to enable city residents to experience cleaner air and less traffic congestion. Of course, in that case, it could be fair to tax everyone to subsidize public transportation because it could be that it exists to enable everyone to live in better condtions.

Here's the thing though.

While this choice may seem to make the case for the conclusion more convincing, this choice is not the correct answer because it's not necessary for the argument to work.

After all, even if cleaner air and less traffic congestion is not  the main  benefit of public transportation, it is still  a  benefit of public transportation. So, since people who don't use public transportation experience that benefit, even if it's not the main benefit, it could still be fair to tax them to subsidize public transportation.

Thus, the argument works even if this choice is not true.

Eliminate.

(E) The fairness of a proposed tax is only one of the factors that a city should consider before imposing it on users and nonusers of public transportation.

This choice is tempting because it makes sense.

We don't need a choice that just makes sense though. We need a choice that is necessary for the argument to work, and this choice isn't necessary.

After all, even if there are no factors other than fairness that a city should consider before imposing a proposed tax, it could still be fair to nonusers of public transportation to subsidize it.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:  A

sayan640 · Answer

KarishmaB  I was confused between A and B for a long time.
Whats the best and quick way to eliminate ?
Negation makes both look appealing.
Should I just check which one fills the missing link ?  GMATNinja

Posted from my mobile device

KarishmaB · Answer

Premises: Because public transportation allows many people to avoid driving, fewer cars are on the road. This means cleaner air and less traffic congestion, which benefit all city residents. Conclusion: Requiring all city residents to pay taxes to subsidize public transportation system is fair, even if all do not use the public transportation. The first point in an assumption question is the "missing link/identify the gap" Here, the premises talk about "benefit" while conclusion talks about "fair". We may think that it is obvious that if one is benefiting, then one must pay and that is fair but the same has not been mentioned in the argument. (A) It is fair to require everyone who benefits from public transportation to pay taxes to subsidize it. This option mentions the unsaid assumption. Hence this is correct even if we thought it was obvious. (B) People who use public transportation do not derive significant benefits from others' use of private transportation. Our argument is whether "tax on susidizing public transport" applied to all is fair or not. Whether people who use public transportation derive significant benefits from others' use of private transportation, we don't know and don't care for our argument. Even if we negate it: Negated B: People who use public transportation derive significant benefits from others' use of private transportation. Ok. So what. May be they do pay taxes for that too. May be they don't but they should too to be fair. If everyone who benefits must pay to be fair, then they must pay too. We don't know whether the benefits nullify or not. This all is beyond our argument. (C) People living outside the city limits also use the city's public transportation system on a regular basis. No comparison between within city limits and outside city limits. (D) For most city residents, the main benefit of public transportation is cleaner air and less traffic congestion. We don't need to assume this. There could be some other main benefit for most residents such as speedy commute. (E) The fairness of a proposed tax is only one of the factors that a city should consider before imposing it on users and nonusers of public transportation. The author's point is whether it is fair or not. What should be considered before imposing is irrelevant. Answer (A) Discussion on Assumption Questions: https://youtu.be/O0ROJfljRLU A pair of difficult assumption questions: https://youtu.be/ZQnhC4d5ODU

einstein801 · Answer

Hi  MartyMurray , I rejected A because of the term "everyone" which could refer to tourists who take public transportation and requiring that they be taxed. How do you think about this?

MartyMurray · Answer

I agree that, by using the word "everyone," choice (A) goes too far since it's not necessary to assume that it's fair to tax everyone who benefits from public transportation.

At the same time, (A) is the only choice that works at all. So, we have to go with (A).

In general, in CR, it works best to keep any choice that might possibly work the first time you go through the choices.

So, in this case, we'd keep (A) even though it goes a little too far. Then, since all the other choices clearly are not necessary assumptions, we'd go with (A) as the best choice.

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - 
Politician: Requiring city residents to pay taxes to subsidize the city's public transportation system is not at all unfair, even if they do not all personally use public transportation. - Conclusion. It's not unfair to tax all residents to subsidize public transportation even if they don't use it.

Because public transportation allows many people to avoid driving, fewer cars are on the road. - Premise

This means cleaner air and less traffic congestion, which benefit all city residents. - Premise.

So if it's beneficial for all, it's fair to tax.

Which of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion of the politician's argument to be properly drawn?

(A) It is fair to require everyone who benefits from public transportation to pay taxes to subsidize it. - connects the premise and conclusion.

(B) People who use public transportation do not derive significant benefits from others' use of private transportation. - doesn't connect the "benefits" and "fairness."

(C) People living outside the city limits also use the city's public transportation system on a regular basis. - " People living outside the city limits" is out of scope as the argument is about city residents.

(D) For most city residents, the main benefit of public transportation is cleaner air and less traffic congestion. - Even if it's not the main benefit, it's still the benefit. The negation will not shatter the conclusion.

(E) The fairness of a proposed tax is only one of the factors that a city should consider before imposing it on users and nonusers of public transportation. - This means that other factors should be considered as well. Out of scope.

shreyans4757583 · Answer

Can anyone post the negation for option D?

vineet6316 · Answer

"Main Benefit"  is irrelevant. The argument simply needs to establish that all residents receive a benefit (cleaner air, less traffic). Whether this benefit is the main or most significant benefit is irrelevant to the fairness argument. As long as any benefit exists, the conclusion that the tax is "not at all unfair" (meaning it has some justification) can be drawn, provided that the underlying principle of fairness is accepted.
 
The politician doesn't need to prove that cleaner air is the best thing residents get from the system; they just need to prove that residents get it and that getting it justifies paying for it.

Advaith_dike · Answer

i dont think these cr ques are based on certain facts because what right for me maybe less influent for others. i opted for opt B because it says with relevance that people paying taxes is fair even if they don't use the public transportation and drive their own personal vehicle. so according to opt B it says clearly , that people using public transport do not get benefit from pvt transport , but it increases the public utility with less pollution and low traffic, it clearly congruent to the argument. if opt A it is mainly saying for those using public transport. hence eliminated it.

Politician: Requiring city residents to pay taxes to subsidize the cit

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: Requiring city residents to pay taxes to subsidize the cit

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