Question

Giselle: The government needs to ensure that the public consumes less petroleum. When things cost more, people buy and use less of them. Therefore, the government should raise the sales tax on gasoline, a major petroleum product. Antoine: The government should not raise the sales tax on gasoline. Such an increase would be unfair to gasoline users. If taxes are to be increased, the increases should be applied in such a way that they spread the burden of providing the government with increased revenues among many people, not just the users of gasoline. As a rebuttal of Giselle's argument, Antoine's response is ineffective because (A) he ignores the fact that Giselle does not base her argument for raising the gasoline sales tax on the government's need for increased revenues (B) he fails to specify how many taxpayers there are who are not gasoline users (C) his conclusion is based on an assertion regarding unfairness, and unfaimess is a very subjective concept (D) he mistakenly assumes that Giselle wants a sales tax increase only on gasoline (E) he makes the implausible assumption that the burden of increasing government revenues can be more evenly distributed among the people through other means besides increasing the gasoline sales tax

Short answer

Option (A).

Step-by-step solution

Understand Giselle's Argument

Giselle argues that the government should raise the sales tax on gasoline because higher costs would lead to less consumption of petroleum. Her focus is on reducing petroleum use, not on generating government revenue.

Analyze Antoine's Argument

Antoine argues against Giselle by stating that raising the gasoline sales tax is unfair to gasoline users. He suggests that any tax increase should be spread across a broader base, not just gasoline users, to fairly distribute the revenue burden.

Critique Antoine's Response

Antoine's response emphasizes the unfairness of targeting gasoline users, but fails to directly address Giselle's main point about reducing petroleum usage. He assumes that the tax hike's primary aim is revenue generation, not reduced consumption.

Evaluate the Options

To find why Antoine's rebuttal is ineffective, consider: (A) addresses the misalignment in foundational arguments between Antoine and Giselle, since Giselle isn't focused on revenue. (B) is irrelevant because it doesn't touch on the core argument. (C) highlights that unfairness is subjective, but doesn't undermine Antoine's entire argument. (D) incorrectly suggests that Antoine misrepresents Giselle's intent. (E) targets the effectiveness of Antoine's assumption about alternative revenue methods.

Select the Best Answer

Option (A) is the most accurate criticism of Antoine's argument because it highlights that Antoine overlooks Giselle's underlying intent, which isn't about generating revenue but about reducing petroleum consumption. This fundamental misunderstanding makes his rebuttal ineffective.

Key concepts

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is about carefully evaluating arguments and drawing conclusions based on evidence and logic. In the debate between Giselle and Antoine, critical thinking means understanding each person's goals and investigating their reasoning.
Giselle's intention is clear: she wants to reduce petroleum consumption, not raise revenue. Meanwhile, Antoine believes the tax increase should not unfairly target gasoline users. To think critically here, we must independently assess each argument's strengths and weaknesses.
Some steps to enhance critical thinking include:

• Identifying the main issue: Giselle wants to focus on consumption reduction.
• Recognizing biases and assumptions: Antoine assumes taxes are intended for raising revenue, which Giselle does not imply.
• Distinguishing facts from opinions: Giselle bases her idea on the economic principle that higher prices reduce demand, while Antoine speaks from a fairness perspective.

By practicing these techniques, students can develop better critical assessments of similar arguments.

Argument Analysis

Argument analysis involves breaking down each part of a conversation to understand the logic behind it. Giselle and Antoine's dialogue showcases two arguments that can be dissected to evaluate effectiveness.
Giselle's argument is structured with a logical cause-and-effect relationship. She states that hiking gasoline taxes will reduce petroleum use due to higher prices causing lower demand. Antoine's argument brings up fairness and a different perspective on revenue distribution.
When analyzing arguments, consider these points:

• Examine the premises: Giselle's claim is rooted in economic principles, while Antoine bases his on fairness assumptions.
• Look for logical connections: Giselle directly links tax increases to reduced consumption, whereas Antoine's connection lies in perceived fairness and revenue distribution.
• Identify any deviations from the main point: Antoine misses Giselle's focus on consumption and instead counters with a different motivation.

By dissecting the components of each argument, students will understand where each argument could succeed or fail.

Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the validity of an argument. Understanding these fallacies helps in identifying weak points in a debate, like that between Giselle and Antoine.
Antoine's response falls prey to two potential fallacies:

• Straw Man Fallacy: Antoine assumes that Giselle's goal is revenue increase, which distracts from her actual intent of reducing petroleum use.
• Slippery Slope Fallacy: He implies that the tax would lead to unfair consequences without providing evidence for these outcomes.

Recognizing these fallacies helps students avoid similar mistakes in their arguments. Fallacies often distract from the core message and can mislead if left unchecked.
Learning to spot logical fallacies empowers students to have more rational and coherent discussions. It also sharpens their skill to challenge assumptions and dissect contrasting arguments effectively.