Truck driver: The gasoline tax is too high and it must be

Question

Truck driver: The gasoline tax is too high and it must be lowered. it has been raised every year for the last five years, while other sales taxes have not. If the government persists in unfairly panalizing truck drivers, our increased operating costs will either hurt consumers or put us out of the business.

State Official: But your gasoline tax dollars maintain adn improve the very roads you depend on. Without those additional revenues, road conditions would deteriorate, costing you and consumers much more in maintainence and repairs.

If the statements made above are true, the best characterization of the logical relationship between the two arguments is that the state official's response,

(A) points out that truck driver's proposal will actually worsen the problem it is intended to solve

(B) in circular, assuming the truth of its conclusion in order to justify its conclusion

(C) points out that the truck driver is selfish because more people are aided by the gasoline tax than are penalized.

(D) is merely an attempt to excuse the government's policy without providing any justification for those policies

(E) points to an inferent contradiction between the cause the truck driver cites and the effects the truck driver thinks will follow from the cause.

Post your rationale, buddies !
happy solving

Dharmin

anandnk · Answer

I will go for A because the official is saying that the problem will get worse.

mba · Answer

I will go with (A),
For (E), As per driver if gasoline tax increases, consumer will suffer or truck driver will suffer, State official says, if tax is not increased then also the result will be same. Hence as such there is no contradiction between cause and effect, it is just that the result will be same for both cases, rather worse in latter.

Paul · Answer

Answer is A
What is wrong with E?
Here is what stem says:
Cause: Higher taxes
Effect: Will hurt the company's customers or put the company out of business

A contradiction would be that lower taxes will hurt the company as well or that higher taxes does not hurt the company at all. E says that that money is required for the well functioning of the firm . Without that money, the firm's situation would be even worse.

There is no contradiction in E. Instead, the official's point supports the cause; high taxes should be maintained because of X and Y reasons

Version2 · Answer

I don't like A. (although it seems like the obvious answer).

It appears to me that the driver and the state official are talking about different things.

The truck driver isn't complaining about paying taxes , but about increases 5 years in row and very high taxes.

The state official doesn't justify the *increase or its excessiveness* but goes on to state why the gasoline tax in general is useful. (There is no justification for the increase over the last 5 years ...like additional roads , increased labour costs etc). 

The argument of the state official appears irrelevant to me

With some reluctance i choose D. Can somebody poke holes into this ?

Paul · Answer

Version2, let me ask you this: 

"Without those additional revenues, road conditions would deteriorate"
Doesn't the above implicitly say that the roads will be repaired by the required funds, hence, a justification for the very presence or increase in the taxes?

Version2 · Answer

Paul, 

I'm not quite sure what "additional revenues" refers to here. 
Additional revenues could refer to the gasoline tax in general or it could refer to the "increased" gasoline tax. 

Either way i don't quite see a justification for the *increase and high taxes*. Merely stating that the *road conditions would deteriorate* doesn't seem to be a valid response. ?

Paul · Answer

Without your tax money , the road conditions would deteriorate. Hence, your tax money serves to maintain the roads in good condition.

Another example. Without your money, people will die of starvation. Hence, doesn't your money serve the purpose of feeding those needy people. Don't you have a reason for the use of your money?

Version2 · Answer

Without your tax money, the road conditions would deteriorate. No, i got that part. Believe me , i'm trying hard to poke holes into my own argument. :-)

There is a "reason to use the money" ... is there a justification " for increasing it every year". Perhaps you are making the assumption that if someone takes "X" amount of money from you its because they need all of "X". Rephasing in an *absurd way* to make a point. Goverment : "The next year every truck driver should pay a billion dollars as gasoline tax" Driver: "Thats unfair and will drive us out of business". Official : We need the billion bucks to maintain and upkeep roads, Put the above way the officials explanation sounds irrelevant to me. Of course i might be overanalysing this one ;-)

.

Paul · Answer

IMO, the mere fact of maintaining roads is enough justification for the use of the money. Sometimes, you don't necessarily need to build additional roads or show that labour costs have increase in order to justify the use of the available scarce resources. Simply maintaining a network of roads can be a cash drain and claiming that the funds are needed for the maintenance of the road network is ample enough justification. On the other hand, you said that you did not like A. What aspect of A did you not like?

Dharmin · Answer

Nice discussion !

OA is "A", pals

Dharmin

Version2 · Answer

I agree with this. Again i don't see any justification for increases. While a network of roads can be a cash drain (maintenance and the like) what is the necessity for increases every year? now if the CR was phrased this way In this case i'd chose A. 'A' to me has always been tangetial to the issue. The truck drivers proposal is to "lower" taxes. The official did not provide any reason for using up all the tax dollars (as the previous absurd argument i posted shows). So telling the driver that he would be worse of than before seemed to be without proof. Perhaps lowering the tax by 10% would actually benefit the drivers. All i though of when reading the officials response is 'where have you justified the increase in taxes'. What changed between the 1st year and the 5th year that you got to keep *increasing* the taxes'? Am i grasping at straws here ??. The only CR's i get wrong are the ones which have simple answers and i don't seem like simple answers

.

Truck driver: The gasoline tax is too high and it must be

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