The governments tax collection agency has not followed through on its

Question

The government’s tax collection agency has not followed through on its plan, announced a year ago, to crack down on violations of corporate income tax law. Audits are the primary tool for detecting such violations, and over the past year, not a single audit of corporate income tax returns has been completed.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

(A) The plan to crack down on violations of corporate income tax law is part of a broad campaign against corporate misconduct.

(B) The number of personal income tax returns audited over the past year is greater than in previous years.

(C) Most audits of corporate income tax returns do not reveal any significant violations.

(D) It generally takes longer than one year to complete an audit of a corporate income tax return.

(E) Over the last five years, fewer audits of corporate income tax returns have been completed than in the preceding five years.

guddo · Answer

The government’s tax collection agency has not followed through on its plan, announced a year ago, to crack down on violations of corporate income tax law. Audits are the primary tool for detecting such violations, and over the past year, not a single audit of corporate income tax returns has been completed.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

The argument says the agency did not follow through on its crackdown plan because no corporate tax audits were completed in the past year.  The key assumption  is that if the agency were really following through, some audits should already have been completed within that year.  If corporate audits normally take longer than a year to finish , then the lack of completed audits does not show that the plan was abandoned.

(A) The plan to crack down on violations of corporate income tax law is part of a broad campaign against corporate misconduct.

This does not weaken the argument. It gives background about the plan, but it does not explain why no audits were completed.

(B) The number of personal income tax returns audited over the past year is greater than in previous years.

This is not very relevant. The argument is specifically about corporate income tax audits, not personal ones.

(C) Most audits of corporate income tax returns do not reveal any significant violations.

This does not weaken the argument much. Even if many audits find nothing, audits could still be part of a crackdown.

(D) It generally takes longer than one year to complete an audit of a corporate income tax return.

This most weakens the argument. If corporate audits usually take more than a year, then a plan announced only one year ago could still be underway even though no audits have yet been completed.

(E) Over the last five years, fewer audits of corporate income tax returns have been completed than in the preceding five years.

This may even support the argument, since it suggests declining enforcement.

Answer: (D)

Lokeshreddy444 · Answer

The government’s tax collection agency has not followed through on its plan, announced a year ago, to crack down on violations of corporate income tax law. Audits are the primary tool for detecting such violations, and over the past year, not a single audit of corporate income tax returns has been completed.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

The argument says the agency did not follow through on its crackdown plan because no corporate tax audits were completed in the past year. The key assumption is that if the agency were really following through, some audits should already have been completed within that year. If corporate audits normally take longer than a year to finish, then the lack of completed audits does not show that the plan was abandoned.