The tax bill passed 2 years ago

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: opening elsewhere2% picked this

   If Plastonica had not opened the plastics factory in the area, it would not have opened a

   There's no reason the author has to believe that this city was the only possible place Plastonica would build a factory. It wouldn't hurt the argument at all to negate this and get, "Plastonica might have opened a plastics factory elsewhere, if they hadn't opened one in the area". Let's say that Plastonica was considering this area or Shelbyville. Does that hurt the argument? No. In fact the author can argue that what lured them away from Shelbyville was the bill and its incentives, thus proving her point that the bill has already created many jobs.

   2%
2. B

   Correct80% picked this

   Plastonica would not have opened the plastics factory in the area had it not been

   Why this is right

   This is definitely in the author's head, if they think that "the bill created these jobs". By saying that, we're implying that the bill had a meaningful impact. These jobs wouldn't have existed without the bill. If we negate this, it says, "Plastonica would have opened the plastics factory in the area even if there weren't any incentives". That would badly weaken the argument. We can't give the bill credit for creating these jobs if they would have existed anyway.

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

   80%
3. C

   Too Strong5% picked this

   Most critics of the tax bill claim that it will not create any

   Too Strong: most Out of Scope: critics All we're analyzing is whether or not the bill has already created jobs. What critics claim or believe is immaterial to that case. We only care about what is actually the case. Did / didn't the bill lure a company here? It's also the case that the word "most" is wrong on Necessary Assumption 99% of the time you see it. Does the author really need to believe that at least 51% of critics claim something? Would the argument be badly hurt if it was only at most 49% of critics that claimed it? Of course not. The difference between at least 51% and at most 49% is so slight that it's almost never necessary for the author to believe that something is over the 50% mark.

   5%
4. D

   Out of Scope: opening elsewhere3% picked this

   If Plastonica had not opened the plastics factory in the area, it would have opened

   There's no reason the author has to believe that Plastonica was definitely going to open a factory no matter what. It wouldn't hurt the argument at all to negate this answer and say, "It was either this area or nowhere". Plastonica might already have factories in lots of cities. It wasn't sure whether it would be worth building a new one, but then they heard about the rad incentives in this bill and it made them think, "Okay, let's build one more factory". That story is compatible with the author's notion that the bill's incentives have created these Plastonica jobs. Since the negation doesn't weaken, it can't be the correct answer.

   3%
5. E

   Out of Scope: critics' beliefs11% picked this

   Critics of the tax bill believe that it has not created any jobs

   All we're analyzing is whether or not the bill has already created jobs. What critics claim or believe is irrelevant. We only care about what is actually the case. Did / didn't the bill lure a company here? If we negated this, it would be saying, "Critics believe that the bill has created jobs in the area". Would that weaken? No, that would strengthen! That agrees with the conclusion.

   11%