Critical Reasoning

A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deductions from taxable income for donations a taxpayer has made to charitable and educational institutions. If this change were adopted, wealthy individuals would no longer be permitted such deductions. Therefore, many charitable and educational institutions would have to reduce services, and some would have to close their doors.

The argument above assumes which of the following?

(A) Without the incentives offered by federal income tax laws, at least some wealthy individuals would not donate as much money to charitable and educational institutions as they otherwise would have.

(B) Money contributed by individuals who make their donations because of provisions in the federal tax laws provides the only source of funding for many charitable and educational institutions.

(C) The primary reason for not adopting the proposed change in the federal income tax laws cited above is to protect wealthy individuals from having to pay higher taxes.

(D) Wealthy individuals who donate money to charitable and educational institutions are the only individuals who donate money to such institutions.

(E) Income tax laws should be changed to make donations to charitable
and educational institutions the only permissible deductions from taxable income.

The answer is A, I choose D
I'm a little confused by the "content of the tax law", its "eliminate deduction", means it allows the wealthy individual to donate as they like, do not have a up limit, of course it will reduce the wealthy donation part, so i think D is also right.

your help is greatly appreciated.

:roll: :

this seems to be a tricky one..even i went for D

in my opinion d only explanation i could find for A being the answer is..

As the conclusion says:Therefore, many charitable and educational institutions would have to reduce services, and some would have to close their doors.

D says: Wealthy individuals who donate money to charitable and educational institutions are the only individuals who donate money to such institutions.

That means if Wealthy individuals are the only people doing charity.. then all institutions will have to shut down.

But as the conclusion says only some institutions will close down.

I tried use negation rule on A..
Without the incentives offered by federal income tax laws, at least some wealthy individuals would donate as much money to charitable and educational institutions as they otherwise would have.

i.e even if there are no incentives provided by govt. wealthy people will do charity.Thus it means that the institutions will not have to shut down.This goes against the conclusion.

The thing is, if we use negation rule on D ,the conclusion is not weakened..

i would request people and experts to pitch in..

may i know d source pls...

raunekk:

Thank you very much, I totally agree with your reasoning analysis.

"some have to shut down" means at least there are still some donations for these charity institution to sustain, wealthy people's donation will still go on even not to the previous amouts, then, if the wealthy donation is the only channel, it doesnot matter, since the policy is not to close/eliminate all the wealthy individual's donation."

I still think D is the best one.

GMAT CR is for the best, best appropriate and reasonable answer.

The question is from Official Guide 10th.

Hi, wealthy persons donate to charity and if deduction is withdrawn then charities will have to close...

Reason is beacuse they will be deprived of funds..so A is the correct answer

D- talks abt who donates..it has no relevance..because stem does nt state that they will reduce donating...so who donates has no relevance as far as assumption is concerned...

Comments pls

I guessing based on your selection of D and explanation, you read the passage and assumed ONLY wealth people donate money. This is not the case, the passage points out if the wealth people are the only people effected by the change. One can infer the non-wealthy people will not be effected (and therefore donate).

(D) is out given non-wealthy people will not be effected by the new tax rules. (D) assumes wealthy people are the only donaters to begin with.

(B) is too definitive.

(C) is out of scope.

(D) above

(E) even more out of scope than (C)

IMO: A
some people would confused about "at least" in this sentence

A) Without the incentives offered by federal income tax laws, at least some wealthy individuals would not donate as much money to charitable and educational institutions as they otherwise would have.

hi,
On applying negation rule to D the conclusion is weakened. And so is in A. Can anyone please explain how negation rule on D not weaken the conclusion?

Most of the above discussions are deviation from topic. It has nothing to do with AT LEAST or ONLY
Let me paraphrase the ques stem

wealthy individual will no more get tax advantage for donation to charitable or educational institutions, which will bring down the fund received by charitable and educational institutes.

U would be having a question in ur mind, why eliminating donations from "getting tax advantage" will reduce donation by these wealthy people. And the answer is "DONATION BY WEALTHY PEOPLE IS PROPELLED BY TAX ADVANTAGE", this is what the assumption stated in A. Without assuming this conclusion will become invalid

Does D say that wealthy people will stop donating after disqualifying donation from tax exemption. ANS is NO. So D is eliminated.

Hope it helps !!