The spokesperson proceeds by

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: reinterpreted term1% picked this

   reinterpreting a term that is central to an

   There isn't really any opposing argument in the first place. There is just a proposal. Since the author is resisting its logic, we could maybe say the proposal is an opposing argument. But is there some term that's central to the opposing argument? If anything, maybe "stimulate"? "Benefit?" Either way, our author never reinterprets a term. (this answer sounds like the famous Equivocation flaw)

   1%
2. B

   Correct85% picked this

   arguing that a predicted advantage would be offset by an

   Why this is right

   The author is saying that giving $600 million back to taxpayers, who will spend that money and stimulate the economy, is an "illusory" benefit, meaning "it won't actually turn out to be beneficial". Why won't it benefit the economy to have $600 million being spent by taxpayers? Well, because in order to pay for that $600 million, we'll have to offset it with disadvantageous measures (either taking $600 million back from people by making up new taxes or firing a bunch of government workers). The final idea that "there can be no resulting net increase" is a good match for "the predicted advantage will be offset by an accompanying disadvantage".

   Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   85%
3. C

   Out of Scope: motives2% picked this

   casting doubt on the motives of

   The author never mentions anything resembling an attack on the legitimacy of the motives of the people proposing to stimulate the economy. This answer sounds like the famous Ad Hominem flaw.

   2%
4. D

   Weak Match2% picked this

   drawing a distinction between different kinds of

   The author does mention different kinds of ways to raise revenue or cut expenses, so it feels like maybe she distinguished between different kinds of economic activity? But if we think about where "economic activity" appears in context, it's in the very first sentence .. the proposal to give a big tax refund is hoping to stimulate economic activity, in the form of taxpayers who get their refund check and then spend that money. The author doesn't draw a distinction between different ways the taxpayers might spend their refund check. To the extent that we could potentially call "raising taxes" or "laying off city employees" different kinds of economic activities, this answer still wouldn't do as good a job as the correct answer does of describing how the author arrives at her conclusion of "no resulting net increase". The correct answer says, "advantage is offset by disadvantage, thus no resulting net increase". This answer is saying, "these types of economic activities aren't the same, thus no resulting net increase".

   2%
5. E

   Bad Match10% picked this

   seeking to show that the assumption that taxpayers would spend money that might be refunded

   The author never makes it seem like taxpayers wouldn't spend the money they're refunded. She accepts that part of the proposal but just thinks that the economic good caused by their spending would be annulled by the economic downside of raising new taxes or firing local workers.

   10%