Critical Reasoning

State revenues from the corporate income tax are seriously threatened by the new trend towards decentralization of corporate headquarters. Many of the companies leaving the city and its extensive public transportation system are finding it necessary to import costly executive helicopters to transport personnel to and from isolated locations in the suburbs. Because money spent on these helicopters is deductible from gross corporate income as an expense of doing business, such companies will thus pay lower taxes to the state. We must apply appropriate economic sanctions to avoid the loss of these much-needed tax revenues.
Which of the following, if true, most weakens the reasoning on which the argument depends?

a. Higher personnel transport costs are offset by other savings at the new corporate headquarters.
b. Tax revenues lost from corporations leaving the state will exceed those gained if sanctions are imposed
c. Increased taxes are paid by helicopter manufacturers as a result of booming business.
d. Business executives prefer the convenience of rapid helicopter travel.
e. There are other economic difficulties for cities caused by corporate relocations to suburbs.

How do we negate choice A......i answered rightly but confused regarding choice A

conclusion: we must apply sanctions to regain the taxes...
now lets weaken the reasoning....

Govt wants to regain the lost tax ...that is spent in helicopters..or shown

option A is not well written

use POE to get to A

applying any mechanical process will lead to such scenario. A in fact is against one of the main premises or conclusion itself that revenue is not lost it same only as increased one like this is somehow offset with some other expenses...

B is weakening the conclusion: If u sanction the gained revenue is less than the business affected...so B clearly weaken the conclusion

ankit1383 wrote:State revenues from the corporate income tax are seriously threatened by the new trend towards decentralization of corporate headquarters. Many of the companies leaving the city and its extensive public transportation system are finding it necessary to import costly executive helicopters to transport personnel to and from isolated locations in the suburbs. Because money spent on these helicopters is deductible from gross corporate income as an expense of doing business, such companies will thus pay lower taxes to the state. We must apply appropriate economic sanctions to avoid the loss of these much-needed tax revenues.
Which of the following, if true, most weakens the reasoning on which the argument depends?

a. Higher personnel transport costs are offset by other savings at the new corporate headquarters.
b. Tax revenues lost from corporations leaving the state will exceed those gained if sanctions are imposed
c. Increased taxes are paid by helicopter manufacturers as a result of booming business.
d. Business executives prefer the convenience of rapid helicopter travel.
e. There are other economic difficulties for cities caused by corporate relocations to suburbs.

How do we negate choice A......i answered rightly but confused regarding choice A

Whats the OA?
'A' doesn't seem to weaken the conclusion ...

B and C look more appropriate and of these I would choose 'C' since that speaks about an alternate source of tax revenues

-A

IMO C
Alternate source of tax revenue.

(C) is clear, concise and correct

I'm pretty confident that C is correct answer