Party spokesperson: The opposition party's

Answer choices

1. A

   Strengthens9% picked this

   taxpayers of the province would spend outside the province at least $300 million of any $600

   This goes in the opposite direction of our goal. We want to argue that this $600 million tax refund would create a net increase in stimulating the province's economy. This is saying half the money would be spent outside the province.

   9%
2. B

   No Impact: partial payments6% picked this

   taxpayers of the province would receive any refund in partial payments during the year rather than

   We don't care if it's partial payments or a lump sum. That distinction doesn't give us a way to argue that the $600 million can result in a net increase in spending.

   6%
3. C

   No Impact: angering3% picked this

   province could assess new taxes in a way that would avoid

   This argument is only about whether there's a net increase in spending. It doesn't care about potential anger, unless we know that answer is going to affect spending. This answer is also about how they would go about raising taxes after issuing the refund, but that's not going to help us. We need a storyline where they give out tax refund and somehow that $600 million increases net spending in the province.

   3%
4. D

   Unrelated to Goal40% picked this

   province could, instead of refunding the money, stimulate its economy by redirecting its spending to use the $600 million for construction projects

   We're not interested in any counterfactuals where we don't refund the money. We could bail from this answer as soon as we see "instead of refunding the money", because that makes it instantly irrelevant to our conclusion. This is a very popular answer, so it suggests that many people were not super clear on the relationship of the conclusion in the final sentence to the original rebuttal that set the stage for this whole conversation. If you read the conclusion as the author merely saying, "we'll never have a net increase in spending to stimulate the economy", then this answer would definitely seem to suggest a scenario in which the economy is getting stimulated. But the last sentence is saying "there can be no net increase in spending to stimulate the economy [resulting from this proposed $600 million refund. It envisions an illusory benefit]." The keyword that reminds you the final conclusion is specifically about the $600 million tax refund is that the conclusion doesn't say, there can be no net increase in spending but instead says there can be no resulting net increase in spending

   40%
5. E

   Correct42% picked this

   province could keep its workers and use them more effectively, with a resulting savings of $600 million

   Why this is right

   This gives us a way to argue that we could refund $600 million and have a net increase in local spending. The author was worried that in order to balance the books, the government would have to lay off $600 million worth of city employee salaries. This answer is saying that instead, the government could balance the books by improving employee efficiency, saving them $600 million compared to what they usually spend. This jump in efficiency isn't being triggered by the refund or anything, but if it's possible to do, then the author is wrong to arrive at her Intermediate Conclusion. She thinks that "since we have to balance the budget, they'll have to raise taxes or lay-off city employees". But this argument points out a third possibility -- "maybe you could balance books by finding ways to save that money elsewhere".

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

   42%