ashblog02 wrote:17. With Proposition 13, if you bought your house 11 years ago for $75,000, your property tax would be approximately $914 a year (1 percent of $75,000 increased by 2 percent each year for 11 years); and if your neighbor bought an identical house next door to you for $200,000 this year, his tax would be $2,000 (1 percent of $200,000). Without Proposition 13, both you and your neighbor would pay $6,000 a year in property taxes (3 percent of $200,000).
Which of the following is the conclusion for which the author most likely is arguing in the passage above?
(A) Proposition 13 is unconstitutional because it imposes an unequal tax on properties of equal value.
(B) If Proposition 13 is repealed, every homeowner is likely to experience a substantial increase in property taxes.
(C) By preventing inflation from driving up property values, Proposition 13 has saved homeowners thousands of dollars in property taxes.
(D) If Proposition 13 is not repealed, identical properties will continue to be taxed at different rates.
(E) Proposition 13 has benefited some homeowners more than others.
OA- b

I think funda to solve questions like these are
-time(which you wont have in real exam ...you get this when you are behind in 75 minutes run...you start panicing)
-what you see is what it is and most of time % and number logic have some arguement loopholes(which is explained by multiple case scenario....like in data sufficiency of quantative)

The problem with question like these is ,you have to understand each line(cannot skip...)
But thank god in this question,a general question has been asked not specific...
I have seen whole math in some CR problems...

Question: This may background for what kind of conclusion? or what follows...

here
A out -----unconstitutional.....out of scope...too broad
B keep it
C out ----inflation...is too much to infer...
D is not true....it is not that identical properties are taxed differently NOW.
E keep it

now B and E

Try to attack B:First try -------not successful----still looks good
Try to attack E:
Proposition 13 has benefited some homeowners more than others
It may seem good but lets thinks in this way....Preposition 13 is what it should be(right)....people are getting what they deserve to get....(no benefits) but if we remove prepos 13 it would be autocratic(imposing same tax for all irrespective of value of preperty).

For eg,if you are paying 25% tax now,you shouldnot feel you are benefitted thinking govement can impose 100% tax.

So,feeling very bad can happen(which should not),we should not conclude that what ever we have is the best and we are lucky to get it.
So,logic in E may prove if it is applied it may be wrong but it doesnt prove people are getting too much ,more than they deserve now.
So B left.
B wins as all other options are eliminated.


For all these time is the biggest factor not for explanation but even to think.
So may be tackling it with deep thought and making up time from SC might help.

thanks