Tax reformer: The proposed tax reform legislation is being

Question

Tax reformer: The proposed tax reform legislation is being criticized by political groups on the right for being too specific and by political groups on the left for being too vague. Since one and the same statement cannot be both too specific and too vague, the criticisms just go to show that the legislation is framed just as it should be.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) It is rare for political groups both on the rightand on the left to criticize a particular tax reform proposal.

(B) Even an overly specific or vague tax reform proposal can be implemented in a way that produces beneficial results.

(C) The proposed legislation has not been criticized by any group that does not identify itself with the political right or the political left.

(D) The proposed legislation as it is framed was not meant to satisfy either political groups on the right or political groups on the left.

(E) The proposed legislation is not made up of a set of statements some of which are overly specific and some of which are overly vague.

Source: LSAT 80, December 2016

sobby · Answer

Premise : Since one and the  same statement  cannot be both too specific and too vague....--and using this Premise , it is giving the conclusion that the criticisms just go to show that the legislation is framed just as it should be.

We have to assume E here...it says that the legislation is not made of set of  statements  some of which are overly specific and some of which are overly vague.if that is the case , both political groups on the left and right are correct in a way and this will cause doubt on veracity of argument..

prithvishuppal · Answer

Pre-thinking
In what scenario would the proposed tax reform NOT be just given that some interpreted it as too vague and some as too specific?
What if one of the sides mis-interpreted the statements? What if its actually vague or actually specific?

Assumption: The statements were not misinterpreted by the leftist or the rightist.

Answer E matches the pre-thinking.

Krishaa12 · Answer

Please give counter explaination for option D

Posted from my mobile device

Akash720 · Answer

D and E are the statements anyone will narrow down to but you need to be careful about the trap because D may seem attractive and this is how you'll reason in your daily life . But let's see what actually it is

D - This statement talks about satisfying political parties which is no where mentioned in the argument. Hence this is irrelevant and Out of scope.

E - The argument mentions that one statement can't be specific and vague at the same time. Hence this arises the need to assume that we don't have multiple statements, in which few are specific and few are vague.

+1 for E

TheNightKing · Answer

Why not C?
If the sole reason for acceptance is the criticism offered by the both extreme parties, then the group, which is not extreme, should also be considered.

gvij2017 · Answer

What I understood from the argument is that a statement can't be   simultaneously specific and vague.  
So in proposed legislation is not made of set of statements some which are simultaneously specific and vague.

Now if negate the option E
The proposed legislation is made up of a set of statements some of which are overly specific and some of which are overly vague.

Then according to my understanding for negated option E, proposal might have some statement which are overly specific and some statements which are overly vague. If this the case then negated option E is still supporting the argument.

I think option E could be re-written in better way as below. 
 The proposed legislation is not made up of a set of statements some of which are overly specific are overly vague.

ShreyasJavahar · Answer

E is the make or break statement here. Think about it this way, if the legislation was partly specific and partly vague, would it be right to pass it? In an ideal scenario, a legislation must account for every aspect it attempts to cover, with great specificity, so that there are no loopholes. Now if the assumption in E was neglected, the argument would fall flat. We would have to proceed assuming that it is ok for a legislation to be partly specific and partly vague, and that is absolutely not a reasonable thing to do.

C however, is not make or break. Would analysis by a third party that leans neither left or right help us make a decision? The third party will most certainly not be neutral and will be biased in some way or the other. That would not help us declare with certainty that the legislation is just fine.

aniket16c · Answer

Dear Experts, Can you please explain OA.

Rishitha0311 · Answer

Hi  MartyMurray  /  KarishmaB

Can you please look at this question once?
The argument already states that there is "one and the same statement" in the proposed legislation. E exactly implies the same. Assumption should a hidden fact as per my understanding. In that case how can E be a valid assumption?

MartyMurray · Answer

The argument is about "tax reform legislation," which is presumably composed of multiple statements.

The conclusion is the following:

the criticisms just go to show that the legislation is framed just as it should be

The support for that conclusion is the following statement:

one and the same statement cannot be both too specific and too vague

We see that the author is going from the fact that a single statement cannot be both too specific and too vague to the conclusion that the legislation must about about right.

So, what has the author assumed?

Here's the correct answer:

(E) The proposed legislation is not made up of a set of statements some of which are overly specific and some of which are overly vague.

We see that in going from evidence about "one and the same statement" to the conclusion, the author has failed to consider that there is another possible path to legislation being both overly specific and overly vague. The other possible path is, rather than that "one ... statement" is both too specific and too vague," multiple statements in the legislation are each either overly specific or overly vague.

So, the general assumption made by the author is that there is not a path to the legislation being overly specific and overly vague other than "one and the same statement" being both too specific and too vague, and the correct answer states the more specific assumption that a particular alternative path does not exist, with that particular path being the legislation being made up of "a set of statements" some of which are overly specific and some of which are overly vague.

unraveled · Answer

Tax reformer: The proposed tax reform legislation is being criticized by political groups on the right for being too specific and by political groups on the left for being too vague.  Since one and the same statement cannot be both too specific and too vague,  the criticisms just go to show that the legislation is framed just as it should be.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) It is  rare  for political groups both on the rightand on the left to criticize a particular tax reform proposal.

(B) Even an overly specific or vague tax reform proposal can be  implemented in a way that produces beneficial results .

(C) The proposed legislation has  not been criticized by any group that does not identify itself with  the political right or the political left.

(D) The proposed legislation as it is framed  was not meant to satisfy either political groups  on the right or political groups on the left.

(E) The proposed legislation is  not made up of a set of statements  some of which are overly specific and some of which are overly vague.

For me D and E stand out while others are plain wrong for being too naive or irrelevant. 
D loses for bringing an aspect in the passage that changes its scope. If we think timeline-wise the passage is placed in a time period that occurs after it is known that it wasn't meant to satosfy either party.

In the passage the blue text is the reasoning that one needs to target and address the gap in it.
What is too specific and what is too vague is what needs to be identified. May be(assumption is) the two groups have same definition of the two. And this where E fills the gap by clearing the air of ambiguity.

Answer E.

ChayanikaM · Answer

Here the political groups on the right are saying the legislation is too specific and the political groups on the left are saying the legislation is too vague. The conclusion refutes the criticism saying the legislation is comprised of only one statement which cant be both specific and vague but what if there are multiple statements, some vague some specific then the legislation is not framed as it should be.

So on negating E, conclusion does not hold.

So on negating E, conclusion does not hold.

Tax reformer: The proposed tax reform legislation is being

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

Tax reformer: The proposed tax reform legislation is being

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