This argument can be broken into premises, an intermediate conclusion, and a conclusion. To help clear up the rationale for answer E, let’s focus on the parts about the sales tax.
Premises:Collected when money is spent, not earned → regressive
+
Same % collected from everyone
+
Less money → larger % of income on necessities
I
ntermediate conclusion: Sales tax rate increases as people earn less money
Conclusion: State should eliminate sales tax
It’s worth pausing to make sure we understand. To take a simple example, if Person A makes $100 weekly, and Person B makes $1,000 weekly, and the “necessities” cost an average of $50 per person weekly, then Person A is paying 50% of their income on necessities, while Person B is paying 5%. If they are each paying the same sales tax rate (let’s say 10%), then Person A is paying 5% of their weekly income in sales tax, while person B is paying .5%. This is the opposite structure of the “progressive” income tax rate described in the first sentence.
The conclusion says, in part, that eliminating the sales tax would be fair to all citizens. This conclusion makes a lot of assumptions — what is the definition of “fair,” for example? But we need to stay open minded, and look for an answer that has to be true in order for eliminating the sales tax to be considered fair.
Let’s start with
(E), the correct answer in question.
The argument for eliminating the sales tax rests on the idea that people making different amounts of money have to spend a base amount on necessities, and therefore they are forced into a tax structure like the example I described above, where Person A makes less money but pays a higher percentage of their income in sales tax. However, if there is no sales tax on necessities, then this rationale provided for the conclusion collapses. Person A and Person B can purchase the necessities and pay 0% sales tax, avoiding the scenario of a person with lower income having to pay a higher “effective” sales tax.
Let’s look at the other answers:
(A) This is a twist in wording from the premises, which describe a progressive tax as taking a greater percentage of money from people who make more money. Since that is already clearly stated in the text, this is not something that needs to be added to the argument in order to make it true. (In fact, it would just make it more confusing!).
(B) This contradicts the conclusion. Assumptions should always help the argument.
(C) It’s not clear how savings would impact people with lower or higher income differently, or how that would interact with the rationale for this argument. We would have to make too many assumptions to choose this answer.
(D) This is already stated in the argument, so this is what we would call a “premise booster.” Assumptions must be unstated.
I hope this is helpful! Happy to answer follow-up questions. If you’re looking to dig deeper into assumption questions, ManhattanPrep’s
Free Trial Classes have a great foundational lesson on the building blocks of this question type!
Happy studying,
Ally Bell
ManhattanPrep Instructor