uition tax credits

bleacherseat · Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:35 pm Post subject: uition tax credits

Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents whose children attend private schools maintain that people making no use of a government service should not be forced to pay for it. Yet those who choose to buy bottled water rather than drink water from the local supply are not therefore exempt from paying taxes to maintain the local water supply.
Roger: Your argument is illogical. Children are required by law to attend school. Since school attendance is a matter not of choice, but of legal requirement, it is unfair for the government to force some parents to pay for it twice.

Which of the following responses by Gloria would best refute Roger’s charge that her argument is illogical?

(A) Although drinking water is not required by law, it is necessary for all people, and therefore my analogy is appropriate.
(B) Those who can afford the tuition at a high-priced private school can well bear the same tax burden as those whose children attend public schools.
(C) If tuition tax credits are granted, the tax burden on parents who choose public schools will rise to an intolerable level.
(D) The law does not say that parents must send their children to private schools, only that the children must attend some kind of school, whether public or private.
(E) Both bottled water and private schools are luxury items, and it is unfair that some citizens should be able to afford them while others cannot.

gmat009 · Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:56 pm Post subject:

IMO D

bleacherseat · Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject:

OA is A.

I picked D

gmat009 · Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:50 pm Post subject:

rohangupta83 · Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:14 pm Post subject:

I pick D as well
bleacherseat - what's the source?

pbanavara · Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:32 pm Post subject:

It has to be proven that Gloria's argument is logical:

So parents who send their kids to private schools should not be given a tax credit
Analogy: Even though one uses bottled water, they still pay for basic water services offered.

Reason to be refuted: Schooling is required by law.
To refute the reason : Prove that drinking water is also required by law OR take it a step further and prove that access to drinking water is something superior to just being a law requirement.

Option A States this

I had to work backwards from the options using elimination.

Hope this helps.

-pradeep

rohangupta83 · Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:13 pm Post subject:

pbanavara · Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:25 pm Post subject:

rohangupta83 · Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:37 pm Post subject:

that makes a lot of sense.