CAT Critical Reasoning Practice question with Solution 80

Sound too good to be true? In real life, our natural skepticism would lead us to ask: “Okay, what’s the catch?” And the question stem straight out tells us to be suspicious— we’re asked to weaken the conclusion that this tax reform is good for the low income folks.

Well, everyone knows that if you save money in one area but lose more money in another, the overall transaction is a bust. And that’s the result set in motion by choice (B): A lowincome taxpayer who saves $100 to $300 a year, but has to pay roughly $40 per month, or $480 a year, in additional rent, certainly isn’t benefiting from the tax reform. Based on one positive effect of tax reform, the author concludes that tax reform will have an overall positive effect on low-income taxpayers. However, if (B) is true, the tax reform no longer looks like such a good deal.

(A) could only strengthen the argument, since saving some taxpayers the expense of hiring an accountant would make the new tax reform seem like a positive development. However, (A) fails even as a strengthener, since the argument concerns the interests of lowincome taxpayers, whereas (A) would apply to all taxpayers.

(C) So what? This choice in no way suggests that tax reform isn’t in the interest of lowincome taxpayers.

(D) and (E) both strengthen the argument. Allowing low-income taxpayers to take a deduction on child-care expenses (D), or releasing them altogether from the obligation to pay taxes (E) are certainly benefits to those taxpayers.