Critical Reasoning

However, now that Moneyman has used the negative test, couldn't A also qualify as an assumption.

I am lost !

rohangupta83 wrote:The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to subtract advertising expenses from their revenues in calculating taxable income. Tobacco companies would then have to pay more taxes. As a consequence, they would raise the prices of their products and this price increase would raise the prices of their products and this price increase would discourage tobacco use.
Which of the following is an additional premise required by the argument above?
(A) Tobacco companies would not offset the payment of extra taxes by reducing costs in other areas.
(B) Tobacco companies would not continue to advertise if they were forced to pay higher taxes.
(C) People would not continue to buy tobacco products if these products were no longer advertised.
(D) The money the government would gain as a result of the increase in tobacco companies’ taxable income would be used to educate the public about the dangers of tobacco use.
(E) The increase in taxes paid by tobacco companies would be equal to the additional income generated by raising prices.

E says: A will be equal to B...IMO not necessarily...b could be greater than A! hence E wrong...A is correct

dileepsinha wrote: E says: A will be equal to B...IMO not necessarily...b could be greater than A! hence E wrong...A is correct

E is supposedly a premise/evidence so it is a fact. i.e. we have to take it for granted that A will be equal to B and no other way.

What's your opinion?

I think I am really struggling to get a grasp on how to introduce a premise.

the question asks for an additional premise. it is definitively not stated in the stimulus. an unstated premise is an assumption. so this is an assumption question after all.

moneymans negation technique would be just fine here

scoobydooby wrote:the question asks for an additional premise. it is definitively not stated in the stimulus. an unstated premise is an assumption. so this is an assumption question after all.

moneymans negation technique would be just fine here

and i was thinking that for this one I had to find an evidence rather than an assumption.

Thanks Scooby..

yes funny. when gmac puts it in the stimulus it becomes a premise and when we have to supply one it becomes an assumption

scoobydooby wrote:yes funny. when gmac puts it in the stimulus it becomes a premise and when we have to supply one it becomes an assumption

yes.

rohangupta83 wrote:However, now that Moneyman has used the negative test, couldn't A also qualify as an assumption.

I am lost !

My 1 cent

The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to subtract advertising expenses from their revenues in calculating taxable income. Tobacco companies would then have to pay more taxes. As a consequence, they would raise the prices of their products and this price increase would raise the prices of their products and this price increase would discourage tobacco use.
Which of the following is an additional premise required by the argument above?
(A) Tobacco companies would not offset the payment of extra taxes by reducing costs in other areas.
(B) Tobacco companies would not continue to advertise if they were forced to pay higher taxes.
(C) People would not continue to buy tobacco products if these products were no longer advertised.
(D) The money the government would gain as a result of the increase in tobacco companies’ taxable income would be used to educate the public about the dangers of tobacco use.
(E) The increase in taxes paid by tobacco companies would be equal to the additional income generated by raising prices.

first of all, this an an assumption question.
So we need to find the premise which is necessary to the argument.

conclusion: this price increase would discourage tobacco use.

A: if tobbaco comapny would not offset the taxes, they have to increase the prices of their products, otherwise they would not ------

necessary for the conclusion, otherwise conclusion falls apart

E: irrelevant
how ?

The increase in taxes paid by tobacco companies would be equal to the additional income generated by raising prices.

Lets negate it.


The increase in taxes paid by tobacco companies would NOT be equal to the additional income generated by raising prices.

Big deal...how does it affect the argument?

let's say it is more than the additional income...then what?
lets say it is less than the additional income .... then what?

I also think that E is the here

still feel E should be the answer