Critical Reasoning

With Proposition 13, if you bought your house 11 years ago for $75,000, your property tax would be approximately $914 a year (1 percent of $75,000 increased by 2 percent each year for 11 years); and if your neighbor bought an identical house next door to you for $200,000 this year, his tax would be $2,000 (1 percent of $200,000). Without Proposition 13, both you and your neighbor would pay $6,000 a year in property taxes (3 percent of $200,000).

Which of the following is the conclusion for which the author most likely is arguing in the passage above ?

(A) Proposition 13 is unconstitutional because it imposes an unequal tax on properties of equal value.
(B) If Proposition 13 is repealed, every homeowner is likely to experience a substantial increase in property taxes.
(C) By preventing inflation from driving up property values, Proposition 13 has saved homeowners thousands of dollars in property taxes.
(D) If Proposition 13 is not repealed, identical properties will continue to be taxed at different rates.
(E) Proposition 13 has benefited some homeowners more than others.

ans given is B ,

but some how I am not comfortable with question. "house bought 11 years + tax for 11 yrs ( 11 x 1,000 (aprox) ) = 75000 + 11,000 = 86,000 aprox so how is the cost of both the houses same ($200,000) in first place ? "

With Proposition 13, if you bought your house 11 years ago for $75,000, your property tax would be approximately $914 a year (1 percent of $75,000 increased by 2 percent each year for 11 years); and if your neighbor bought an identical house next door to you for $200,000 this year, his tax would be $2,000 (1 percent of $200,000). Without Proposition 13, both you and your neighbor would pay $6,000 a year in property taxes (3 percent of $200,000).

Find the conclusion.
Premise- Under Proposition 13, if you bought a house 11 years ago for$75,000 then pay property tax based on what you paid for your house 11 years ago.
If you buy an identical house for 200,000 this year, then pay the property tax based on what you pay for the house now.
This is quite fair.

However, without Proposition 13,
no matter how much you bought the house 11 years ago, you have to pay the property tax based on current price.
---->who would want this?????
(A) Proposition 13 is unconstitutional because it imposes an unequal tax on properties of equal value. (too radical to say unconstitutional)
(B) If Proposition 13 is repealed, every homeowner is likely to experience a substantial increase in property taxes. (correct, even those who bought the house for 200,000. the property tax is 6,000 dollars for both, that is a lot.)
(C) By preventing inflation from driving up property values, Proposition 13 has saved homeowners thousands of dollars in property taxes. (it should contain both of the situation)
(D) If Proposition 13 is not repealed, identical properties will continue to be taxed at different rates. (different rate? no. they specifically say the rules, so it's not correct)
(E) Proposition 13 has benefited some homeowners more than others.

thanks for your help,
this one was tough for me

Experts,
Could you please explain why's B correct?
B: If Proposition 13 is repealed, every homeowner is likely to experience a substantial increase in property taxes.

With Proposition 13.
a 75,000 flat (11 years ago) --> $914 tax
a 200,000 flat (now) --> $2000

Option B is too specific to be correct for the argument. Option B says "every" homeowner whereas the argument says specifically about houses worth 75k & 2L. Even if the argument isn't talking specifically about these numbers, there'd still be a chance of house-owners with different ratio/kind of combinations e.g. 75k & 75k or 75k & 80k etc. on which the preposition 13 wouldn't apply atall. e.g. "every house-owner" would include a farm-house owner who doesn't have a neighbour, maybe.

So, going by the above logic, I rejected option B and chose option E since argument mentions:
1. 1 percent of $75,000 increased by 2 percent each year for 11 years
2. 1 percent of $200,000
In the second case, the increment of 2% isn't specifically mentioned, so, second case benefits more. Even though option E requires a bit of assumptions too but it is far better than option B because "every" house-owner would fall prey to many specific cases.

Please explain. Thanks in advance.

The key to getting this type of question right is to hone your ability to predict what type of logical conclusion would follow from the given premise. Once you have your prediction written down, go through the answer choices carefully, asking yourself, "Is this the Conclusion?" You'll be spending slightly more time analyzing the evidence than you would for a Weaken, Strengthen, or Assumption question so approach these questions with extra patience. The correct conclusion will be the answer choice that most logically follows from the specific evidence.

WITH PROP 13:

Fact #1 - 11 yrs ago purchase: 1% + 2%/yr increase
Fact #2 - Today purchase: 1%

WITHOUT PROP 13:

Current tax: $6,000 ---> 3% of $200,000 (neighbor's current price)

What conclusion makes sense based on these facts???

Without Prop 13 would suck for the person who purchased 11 years ago, and would also seem to suck for the person who purchased today.

Prediction: Prop 13 benefits both older homeowners and new homeowners.

(A) Negative to 13 - no
(B) Shows 13 benefits - maybe
(C) 13 is good - maybe
(D) 13 = diff rates - no
(E) 13 benefits diff - no

It must be between (B) and (C). So which of the following is closest to our prediction that Prop 13 BENEFITS both groups?? (B) has a more wide-ranging positive effect, and so must be the correct answer.

"every homeowner" sounded too extreme in option B because there could be home-owners who do NOT fall in either of the categories - 1) who bought the house 11 years ago, and 2) who bought the house the house this year. Maybe there are house-owners who bought the house before 11 yrs ago or in between 11 yrs ago and this year. That's why I rejected this option.
Please help me understand where I'm wrong.
Thanks in advance.

DA