winnerhere wrote:In Iceland, individuals and corporations who contribute to charitable organizations are given no publicity, no future entitlements, nor any income tax deductions for their contributions. Evidently, the strong Icelandic sense of charitable giving suffices to allow the continued support of several hundred charitable organizations in that country.

Which of the following can be inferred from the passage above?


1) Any tax structure that would allow deductions for individual or corporate donations would seriously undermine the sense of charitable giving in Iceland.
This may or may not be true. we can not say allowing deduction can undermine the sense of charitable giving.
2) In Iceland, the charitable donors form a closely knit community of their own.
Out of the scope.
3) In Iceland, charitable giving is regarded more as a privilege than an obligation.
Again out of the scope. it is never mentioned in the question stem that donation is whether obligation or pleasure.

4) In Iceland, there is no public method to determine who gives the most to charitable organizations.
We are not sure about this. A public method could be there.

5) In Iceland, there is apparently no need to implement incentives to encourage individuals or corporations to donate to charitable organizations.

This must be true on the basis of given information, because even without incentive individuals and corporations are still doing the charity.

Ans: E

But I am NOT convinced with the OE. Because eventhough the icelanders are charitable in general without any incentives, it doesnot necessarily mean that an incentive is not necessary. The incentive can encourage an individual or an organiation that is not charitable now

Thanks,
Sai

Because eventhough the icelanders are charitable in general without any incentives, it doesnot necessarily mean that an incentive is not necessary.