LSAT Explanation PT 19, S4, Q18: Politician: A government that taxes incomes

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following argumentative strategies is used by the economist in responding to the politician? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Method of Reasoning question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is C. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

Let's first summarize and analyze the argument in the passage. The politician argues that a 100% income tax rate would generate no revenue because all economic activity would cease. From this, the politician concludes that the lower the income tax rate, the more revenue the government will generate. This is the main conclusion of the argument.

The economist responds by pointing out a flaw in the politician's conclusion, stating that if the argument were correct, then a 0% income tax rate would generate the maximum revenue, which is an absurd conclusion.

Now let's identify the question type and what it's asking us to do. This is a Method of Reasoning (MOR) question, and we are asked to identify the argumentative strategy used by the economist in responding to the politician.

Let's examine each answer choice:

a) Stating a general principle that is incompatible with the conclusion the politician derives: The economist does not offer an alternative general principle, but instead demonstrates the absurdity of the politician's principle. This answer choice is incorrect.

b) Providing evidence that where the politician's advice has been adopted, the results have been disappointing: The economist does not provide any evidence or examples of the politician's advice being adopted and leading to disappointing results. This answer choice is incorrect.

c) Arguing that the principle derived by the politician, if applied in the limiting case, leads to an absurdly false conclusion: This answer choice accurately describes the economist's argumentative strategy. The economist points out that if the politician's principle were correct, a 0% income tax rate would generate the maximum revenue, which is an absurd conclusion. This answer choice is correct.

d) Undermining the credibility of the politician by openly questioning the politician's understanding of economics: The economist does not directly attack the politician's credibility, but instead focuses on the absurdity of the politician's conclusion. The economist's argument may lead us to question the politician's understanding of economics, but this is not the primary strategy used. This answer choice is incorrect.

e) Attacking the politician's argument by giving reason to doubt the truth of a premise: The economist does not attack the politician's premise, which is that a 100% tax rate would result in zero tax revenue. Instead, the economist attacks the politician's conclusion by pointing out its absurdity. This answer choice is incorrect.

In conclusion, the correct answer choice is (c), as the economist's argumentative strategy involves demonstrating the absurdity of the politician's conclusion when applied to the limiting case of a 0% income tax rate.