Politician: All nations that place a high tax on income produce thereby a negative incentive for technological innovation, and all nations in which technological innovation is hampered inevitably fall behind in the international arms race. Those nations that, through historical accident or the foolishness of their political leadership, wind up in a strategically disadvantageous position are destined to lose their voice in the world affairs. So if a nation wants to maintain its value system and way of life, it must not allow its highest tax bracket to exceed 30 percent of income.
Each of the following, if true, weakens the politician’s argument EXCEPT:
(A) The top level of taxation must reach 45 percent before taxation begins to deter inventors and industrialists from introducing new technologies and industries.
(B) Making a great deal of money is an insignificant factor in driving technological innovation.
(C) Falling behind in the international arms race does not necessarily lead to a strategically less advantageous position.
(D) Those nations that lose influence in the world community do not necessarily suffer from a threat to their value system or way of life.
(E) Allowing one’s country to lose its technological edge, especially as concerns weaponry, would be foolish rather than merely a historical accident.
Nations
This topic has expert replies
- dumb.doofus
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 435
- Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:02 pm
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Thanked: 43 times
- Followed by:1 members
- GMAT Score:720
One love, one blood, one life. You got to do what you should.
https://dreambigdreamhigh.blocked/
https://gmattoughies.blocked/
https://dreambigdreamhigh.blocked/
https://gmattoughies.blocked/
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1161
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 am
- Location: Sydney
- Thanked: 23 times
- Followed by:1 members
- Domnu
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 3:55 pm
- Thanked: 11 times
- GMAT Score:740
IMO, the answer is E. Here's why:
[spoiler]A) The statistic changes from 30% to 45%
B) Clearly against a premise stated.
C) Clearly against a premise stated.
D) Clearly against a premise stated.
E) Foolish rather than a historical accident? This is just amplifying what an earlier premise stated. So this doesn't weaken anything the politician stated.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]A) The statistic changes from 30% to 45%
B) Clearly against a premise stated.
C) Clearly against a premise stated.
D) Clearly against a premise stated.
E) Foolish rather than a historical accident? This is just amplifying what an earlier premise stated. So this doesn't weaken anything the politician stated.[/spoiler]
Have you wondered how you could have found such a treasure? -T
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:13 am
- Thanked: 2 times
How could the answer be B?
It states money is a insignificant factor in technological innovation which is just the opposite to the statement mentioned in premises.
Therefore the answer would be E
OA please?
It states money is a insignificant factor in technological innovation which is just the opposite to the statement mentioned in premises.
Therefore the answer would be E
OA please?
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 11:43 pm
- Location: India
dear Subha_sri8
yes u r right. B is exactly opposite to statement mentioned, so it weakens the argument. What we have to see is what weakens the argument EXCEPT, that means we r looking for argument which strengthen the statement so
E, should be the correct answer
yes u r right. B is exactly opposite to statement mentioned, so it weakens the argument. What we have to see is what weakens the argument EXCEPT, that means we r looking for argument which strengthen the statement so
E, should be the correct answer