Sonya: The government of Copeland is raising the cigarette tax. Copeland's cigarette prices will still be reasonably low, so cigarette consumption will probably not be affected much. Consequently, government revenue from the tax will increase.
Raoul: True, smoking is unlikely to decrease, because Copeland's cigarette prices will still not be high. They will, however, no longer be the lowest in the region, so we might begin to see substantial illegal sales of smuggled cigarettes in Copeland.
Raoul responds to Sonya's argument by doing which of the following?
A: Questioning the support for Sonya's conclusion by distinguishing carefully between No change and no decrease
B: calling Sonya's conclusion into question by pointing to a possible effect of a certain change.
C: Arguing that Sonya's conclusion would be better supported if Sonya could cite a precedent for what she predicts will happen.
D: showing that a cause that Sonya claims will be producing a certain effect is not the only cause that could produce that effect
E: pointing out that a certain initiative is not bold enough to have the predicts it will have
Hi, let's focus at the conclusion of the argument by Sonya.
The conclusion is that
"so cigarette consumption will probably not be affected much. Consequently, government revenue from the tax will increase."
R agrees that consumption won't be affected but also points out another effect of the increase in the price of cig.'s i.e since prices are no longer the lowest in the region, so we might begin to see substantial illegal sales of smuggled cigarettes in Copeland.
Now if there is SUBSTANTIAL illegal sales of smuggled cig's than the Sonya's conclusion that govt. revenue from tax will increase is affected.
With this pre thinking let's look for the correct choice.
A. says R is questioning the support of S's conclusion that govt's revenue will increase. The support for this conclusion is that the consumption won't decrease and hence the govt.'s tax revenue will increase.
Now R is not questioning the support .He is actually questioning the conclusion that Govt.s revenue will increase by providing an alternate effect of the increase in tax.
Hence A is wrong.
B is in line with our pre thinking. Let's keep it and move on.
C is definitely not the answer because nowhere has R asked for a precedent.
D is wrong because R is arguing by showing an alternate effect(increase in the illegal sale)of an cause(increased taxes) which is questioning the S's conclusion (govt.s revenue will increase).
E. is interesting.
R is not questioning the boldness of the initiative(increase in taxes) but merely bringing in another effect of this initiative which might hinder the main conclusion that Govt.s
revenue will increase.
So B is the correct answer.
Hope it helps