Premise: (1) Aroca County's public schools are financially dependent on the gains through property tax
(2) The county plans to shift this financial model from "incomes from tax property" to "income from 3% retails sales".
whatever commodity is sold, the county will charge a 3% on that, and the amount collected will be used to finance the public schools(3)
Currently the 3% amount collected on the
Net retail sales is less than the amount collected through property tax
Conclusion: The 3% plan will not necessarily reduce the amount of money needed for the public schools.
Despite the fact that the amount collected via this new plan is less than the amount collected through the property tax, the author claims that by implementing the new plan will not really be a bad ideaBecause...: We need to select an answer choice that helps us believe that the 3% retail plan will be a good idea.
In other words, we need to find the answer choice that strengthens the collusionAnswer choice:(A) many Aroca County residents have already left the county because of its high property taxes:
Out of scope.This simply means that the number of people who pay the property tax is reduced. But just because the number of people paying the tax has gone down does not help us strengthen the conclusion that "the 3% retail plan must be implemented".
NOTE the argument has clearly mentioned that
Three percent of current retail sales is less than the amount collected through property taxes So even if the number of people paying the property tax has reduced,
the overall amount collected from property tax is still higher.
(B) a shopping mall likely to draw shoppers from neighboring counties is about to open in Aroca County:
Correct Notice the wording of the premise
Three percent of current retail sales is less This means that currently the amount collected through the retail sales is less. This we need to strengthen our conclusion "
3% retail plan is not a bad idea we need (B). If a shopping mall is likely the draw shoppers, the
net retail sales will increase and thus the 3% on this increased net sales will give us a higher amount that can be used for the public schools
E.g. Lets say the Net retail sales is $100 and so 3% would mean a net amount of $3. But now if a shopping mall were to draw more shoppers and thus increase our net retail sales to $1000 then out net income collected would be 3% of 1000 --> $30.
(C) at least some Aroca County parents are likely to use the money they will save on property taxes to send their children to private schools not funded by the county:
Irrelevant. Our argument is concerned with public schools and the plan to fund it. Using the money saved from tax property AND sending children to private schools is not going to help us strengthen out conclusion
(D) a significant proportion of parents of Aroca County public school students do not own their homes and consequently do not pay property taxes:
Irrelevant. Again this just tells us that there are less people who pay property tax. But the argument has clearly stated that the net amount from tax is higher. So this option like (A) does not help us in any way
(E) retailers in Aroca County are not likely to absorb the sales tax by reducing the pretax price of their goods:
Incorrect. This means that the retailers aren't going to reduce their retail price so that the customers do not find the product expensive. Even if the retail do reduce their amount or do not reduce, we aren't able to prove that the 3% retail plan will help the county fund the public schools.
Note If the retailers do reduce their retail price, the overall amount collected by the county MAY reduce. If the retailers do not reduce their retail price, there will be not effect to the argument since it is already mentioned that the amount collected from property tax is more than the retail amount collected
Hence correct answer is
(B)