QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Must be False
CONCLUSION: The government should not tax activities that increase the risk of death.
REASONING: Everyone (including the author) agrees that the government should not tax cancer-causing parrots. Therefore other special taxes on other dangerous activities should also be avoided.
ANALYSIS: This argument sounds silly but it may be correct, if parrots really do cause cancer and there aren’t further reasons to tax the other dangerous activities.
The principle is that we shouldn’t try to protect the public from dangerous activities by taxing those activities.
- The columnist might agree to taxes that fund education. They just don’t think those dangerous activities should be taxed specifically because of the danger.
- The columnist is fine with not taxing.
- CORRECT. The columnist hates this idea. If we don’t tax dangerous parrots then why should we tax anything dangerous!
- “Should not create financial disincentives” means “don’t tax.” The columnist is fine with that.
- The columnist might be fine with this. The only taxes we know he doesn’t like are those that try to protect the public from danger.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly