If the city council maintains spending at the same level as this year's, it can be expected to levy a sales tax of 2 ...

Meredith August 13, 2019

How can you keep the same variables???

I am utterly confused as to how the conclusion from the premise can have the same variable because the sentence says "a higher tax" and that could mean any value for a tax increase (1% 2% 3% etc.) so how can you be so certain you can use the variable of "tax of 2% next year" and negate it?

Replies

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Ravi August 13, 2019

@Meredith,

Great question. The reason you can keep the same variable is because
"a higher tax" is a higher tax relative to the 2% tax. This means
anything above 2%, which is why we can consider this to be a negation
of this variable.

In this argument, we have

Spending at the same level - >levy sales tax of 2%

Therefore, higher tax levy (higher than 2%) - >higher spending level

This isn't exactly the contrapositive of the original statement, but
the argument is using a contrapositive-like argument structure.
Maintaining the same spending level is sufficient for a 2% tax levy.
However, the argument then states that if there is a higher tax levy
(higher than 2%), then there must be higher spending.

(C) says, "If the companies in the state do not increase their
workers' wages this year, the prices they charge for their goods can
be expected to be much the same as they were last year. Thus, if the
companies do increase prices, it will be because they have increased
wages."

(C) mirrors the structure of the argument in the stimulus well.

No increase in wages - > Basically same prices

Not basically same prices - >Increased Wages

We're told that if wages don't increase, prices will remain basically
the same. So, if prices do increase, then wages must increase. This is
the closest answer choice to the stimulus, so it's the correct one.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!

mg123 April 30, 2020

This totally makes sense, thank you!! I think what threw me off was that I assumed the 2% increase for next year was what the "higher tax" was referring to. After reading this, I realized that the "higher tax" was higher relative to the 2%, i.e. 3%. Got it! Thanks for this explanation