Giselle: The government needs to ensure that the public consumes less petroleum. When things cost more, people buy an...
KathOctober 26, 2019
The flaw in the argument
I thought the flaw is
Person 1 talks the tax on only the gasoline users
Person 2 misrepresents person 1's argument to be the tax should be put in people other than gasoline users
I am confused why the person two said the revenue burden, but I just took it as a natural consequence as raising tax.
Could you tell me where I am wrong?
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
To be more clearly, I thought person 2 does not address the argument of the person 1, since person 1 talks the effectiveness, while person 2 talks the fairness.
SkylarOctober 27, 2019
@Kath Happy to help!
You seem to be on the right track. Giselle makes an argument in support of increasing the sales tax on gasoline in order to decrease petroleum use. Antoine responds by stating that increased government revenues should be achieved through taxes that spread that burden "among many people, not just users of gasoline." However, this is flawed because Giselle's argument is based on lowering petroleum usage, not on the government needing increased revenues (A). So, Antoine's rebuttal is ineffective because it does not clash with the basis of Giselle's argument.
Does that make sense? Please let us know if you have any other questions!
KathOctober 27, 2019
On I see! They are talking about different purpose!
