Question

A gas tax of one cent per gallon would raise one billion dollars per year at current consumption rates. Since a tax of fifty cents per gallon would therefore raise fifty billion dollars per year, it seems a perfect way to deal with the federal budget deficit. This tax would have the additional advantage that the resulting drop in the demand for gasoline would be ecologically sound and would keep our country from being too dependent on foreign oil producers. Which one of the following most clearly identifies an error in the author's reasoning? (A) The author cites irrelevant data. (B) The author relies on incorrect current consumption figures. (C) The author makes incompatible assumptions. (D) The author mistakes an effect for a cause. (E) The author appeals to conscience rather than reason.

Short answer

The error is best identified as (C) The author makes incompatible assumptions.

Step-by-step solution

Understand the Scenario

The author claims that a gas tax of one cent per gallon raises one billion dollars, implying that a fifty-cent tax would raise fifty billion dollars. Accompanying advantages include ecological benefits and reduced foreign oil dependency.

Identify the Flaw in the Logic

Analyze the reasoning: the author assumes the relationship between the amount of tax and revenue is linear, neglecting the potential reduction in gas consumption due to the increase in tax. This omission suggests faulty reasoning due to incompatible assumptions.

Analyze the Options

Review the options to find which best describes the error. The choices are about relevance, accuracy, assumptions, causal relationships, and logical appeal.

Match the Flaw to an Option

Option C ('The author makes incompatible assumptions') best matches the reasoning error because the author wrongly assumes a constant consumption rate irrespective of tax increase.

Key concepts

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is the ability to analyze and evaluate an idea or situation carefully. In logical reasoning exercises like the LSAT, critical thinking involves scrutinizing arguments to identify hidden assumptions and potential flaws. For the given exercise, a crucial part of critical thinking is identifying that the proposal assumes a linear relationship between tax rates and revenue. - Critical thinking encourages us to - Question assumptions, such as whether gas consumption rates remain unchanged with higher taxes. - Seek additional information that could affect the outcome, like potential behavior change in consumers. - Consider all counter-arguments, foreseeing what might not work as expected. Engagement in critical thinking leads to better insights and helps avoid traps like hasty generalizations or oversimplified logical connections.

Logical Assumptions

Logical assumptions are foundational ideas that an argument relies upon to make its case. These assumptions are not always explicitly stated and require critical observation to be unearthed. In our scenario: - The key assumption is that increasing the gas tax will linearly raise the revenue. - Another implicit assumption is that ecological and economic benefits are directly linked without considering intermediary effects. Recognizing these assumptions helps in: - Understanding the structure and foundation of an argument. - Identifying which assumptions hold up and which need re-examination or additional support. - Making informed judgments about the validity of the argument.

Argument Analysis

Argument analysis involves dissecting the given proposition to understand its core and determine its soundness. This is essential to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of any argument. In this exercise: - Break down the argument into claims. Here, the primary claim is that a fifty-cent per gallon tax will raise fifty billion dollars a year. - Examine each claim for logical consistency and empirical support. The assumption of unchanged consumption levels despite higher taxes lacks support, thus weakening the argument. Successful argument analysis helps you: - Differentiate between well-founded arguments and those that are potentially flawed. - Identify what parts of the argument need more evidence or revision.

Flaw Identification

Flaw identification is about pinpointing specific errors in an argument's reasoning. It involves spotting inconsistencies or contradictions that may undermine the logic of the argument. For this example: - The recognized flaw is the assumption that gasoline consumption will remain constant despite higher taxes, which is addressed in Option C's choice. - It’s important to understand how this flaw disrupts the argument's conclusion, leading to potentially unsound policy suggestions. By honing your ability to identify flaws: - You improve in evaluating the strength of conclusions drawn from the premises. - Become skilled at making logical connections that reliably lead to sound conclusions.