The argument analogizes involuntary servitude and the government taxing earnings from labor because of their similarity in that each forces work for another's purpose. However, it ignores the fact that just because, in a very general sense, both involuntary servitude and the government taxing earnings from labor force work for another's purpose--they are quite different from each other.
Involuntary servitude is pernicious because of the entire gambit of pernicious details that come with involuntary servitude ranging from loss of freedom, to loss of self. The government taxing a portion of one's earnings from their labor is quite different. The taxes taken from the person's earnings are used, in theory, for resources to better the community and the person herself. This action by the government does not necessarily strip the worker of all sense of independence and self.
There are major differences between these two things that the argument is conveniently looking over so that it can conclude that one is just like the other, i.e. since one is pernicious, the other is, as well.
Answer choice (A) says just this: "It ignores a difference in how the idea of forced work for another's purpose applies to the two cases."
This is exactly the error that the argument is making. The taxation of the government is only forcing a laborer to work IN PART for another's purpose; whereas, involuntary servitude is forced work for another's purpose.
Hope this clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
Julie-VJuly 30, 2019
Can you break down answer choice (E)? I don't think I fully understand what it's trying to get at
