-
Uri
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 6:56 am
- Thanked: 8 times
- GMAT Score:700
Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents whose children attend private schools maintain that people making no use of a government service should not be forced to pay for it. Yet those who choose to buy bottled water rather than drink water from the local supply are not therefore exempt from paying taxes to maintain the local water supply.
Roger: Your argument is illogical. Children are required by law to attend school. Since school attendance is a matter not of choice, but of legal requirement, it is unfair for the government to force some parents to pay for it twice.
Which of the following responses by Gloria would best refute Roger’s charge that her argument is illogical?
(A) Although drinking water is not required by law, it is necessary for all people, and therefore my analogy is appropriate.
(B) Those who can afford the tuition at a high-priced private school can well bear the same tax burden as those whose children attend public schools.
(C) If tuition tax credits are granted, the tax burden on parents who choose public schools will rise to an intolerable level.
(D) The law does not say that parents must send their children to private schools, only that the children must attend some kind of school, whether public or private.
(E) Both bottled water and private schools are luxury items, and it is unfair that some citizens should be able to afford them while others cannot.
Please justify your answer with reasoning.
OA: [spoiler](A)[/spoiler] I have some justification why the OA is correct. But can anyone tell me why [spoiler](B) and (D)[/spoiler] are wrong, since their method of reasoning seems to be the same as the argument?
Roger: Your argument is illogical. Children are required by law to attend school. Since school attendance is a matter not of choice, but of legal requirement, it is unfair for the government to force some parents to pay for it twice.
Which of the following responses by Gloria would best refute Roger’s charge that her argument is illogical?
(A) Although drinking water is not required by law, it is necessary for all people, and therefore my analogy is appropriate.
(B) Those who can afford the tuition at a high-priced private school can well bear the same tax burden as those whose children attend public schools.
(C) If tuition tax credits are granted, the tax burden on parents who choose public schools will rise to an intolerable level.
(D) The law does not say that parents must send their children to private schools, only that the children must attend some kind of school, whether public or private.
(E) Both bottled water and private schools are luxury items, and it is unfair that some citizens should be able to afford them while others cannot.
Please justify your answer with reasoning.
OA: [spoiler](A)[/spoiler] I have some justification why the OA is correct. But can anyone tell me why [spoiler](B) and (D)[/spoiler] are wrong, since their method of reasoning seems to be the same as the argument?
