Critical Reasoning

A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deductions from taxable income for donations a
taxpayer has made to 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.

I could see why the answer is A..it says that D need not be necessary but if wealthy individuals are the ONLY ones that donate, then by not donating wouldn't those institutions have to close down? And bc they are the only ones there are no other people that donate....

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

The above statement goes too far to say that wealthy guys are the only ones who donate money.

If the options were:
Wealthy individuals contribute significantly the donations of the institutions
OR
Donations of wealthy individuals make up a significant proportion of the overall donations

then probably you could choose the above two choices.
However, the author does not assume that the rich are the only ones who donate, just that they make donations substantial enough to affect the survival of the institutions


Also when you the negate D
(D) Wealthy individuals who donate money to charitable and educational institutions are NOT the only individuals who
donate money to such institutions.
Then all we know that there are others who donate
So the negation has no effect on the argument i.e the argument does not fall apart

Hence not a necessary assumption

You can also negate A as did D:

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.


Then all we know that there are others who donate
So the negation has no effect on the argument i.e the argument does not fall apart

:

The argument does not talk about who generally donates to the charities.
It indicates that wealthy people don't get any deductions and hence they probably might stop contributing to charities. Therefore we can not assume that only wealthy people donate to charities.

Also if D is true then A also has to be true.
But if A is true D is not necessarily true.
You can eliminate D.

Can someone explain why B is wrong here ?

I choose B because it lead to the conclusion of charitable institution has to closed their doors

is it wrong because of using "only" ? extreme word ?

quocbao wrote:Can someone explain why B is wrong here ?

I choose B because it lead to the conclusion of charitable institution has to closed their doors

is it wrong because of using "only" ? extreme word ?

Yes, I believe B is incorrect because of the extreme word "only". We can solve this by the process of negation.

Conclusion is, "Therefore, many charitable and educational institutions would
have to reduce services, and some would have to close their doors."

Suppose we assume B is true, then the conclusion holds true.
Suppose we assume B as false, money contributed by individuals who make their donations because of provisions in the federal tax laws IS NOT the only source of funding..., the conclusion still holds true.

If we assume B to be false, charitable and educational institutions may have different situations in funding:
a. individuals who want tax breaks & other sources
b. only individuals who want tax breaks <--validates conclusion (no funds coming into these institutions)
c. only other sources

Situation b above justifies the conclusion. So by process of negation we can see choice B is wrong.

I also feel, B is the right answer.

Also, the extreme word "only" doesn't imply that the choice is incorrect.
Many a times it is. There are many questions in OG which can substantiate this.

Now,i couldn't get yealow's reasoning that if B is false, how the conclusion still holds true.
If funds are coming, why would institutions close down.

If money by individuals is the only source, then if it stops, the instt. have to close down. This is the crux.
D captures it well, but doesn't take into consideration that wealthy individuals contribute bcoz they get tax incentive.

Though B doesn't talk just abt wealthy individuals in particular, but it captures the idea completely.
That is, if those who paid bcoz of tax deductions, stop paying, bcoz tht incentive is no longer there, and they are the only source of income for the institutions, the instt have to close down.

Thus, I feel B is the answer.

I agree with you guys, i also think B is the most suitable option