WOW!
I read my two year old post & I think i'd had explained quite well.
I would suggest to re-read my posts there, if you didnt get it here's my one more attempt. But guess after this I wont be explain this. I probably wont become a good tutor
Fact & inference:
You & Your neighbour owns identical property.
Data given:
1. at 1st year you pay @ 1% of 75,000 ======== 750
2. at 2nd year you add 2% to paid amount
to get the new figure ie: 750 X (1+2)% ==== 772
3. similary for next years 772 X 1.05 ====== 811
4.th year you pay: 867
946
similarly 1050
1186
& hence forth
for coming years the taxed amount goes on increase.
Note that you donot pay less tax for the identical property worth the same, today.
This conclusion eliminates point: A D & E. as you are not paying less than your neighbour.
You dont have idea about it.(whether it's less more or the same) There is no question of comparision.
you must have seen by the calculations I just provided it looks scary isn't it. Let me re-iterate this is not a PS problem.
Yes, you paid 750$ which is less than $2000 but that was 11 years earlier.
In case if proposition13 is removed both of you would have to 6000 as tax which is IN ANYWAYS more than what you are paying right now.
The statement gives information about what if proposition 13 is removed & nothing other stuff.
Which is what exactly Option B talks about.....
A very tricky & confusing (or hazzy??) question indeed. worth LSAT.