Critical Reasoning Doubt in Kaptest Explanation

This topic has expert replies
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 10:19 am
Hi,

I have a doubt in the following cr question (Screen of question and explanation attached)

Im not satisfied with the explanation.

The explanation says that ans E is correct. I had chosen ans C.

I juggled between C and E, but ultimately settled for C due to the following reasons:

1. If the number of "RESIDENTS" has remained the same, it would mean that the same people more or less are still resident in the town of Eastbury.
2. Owing to that, given that there are no triggers, the per-capita should remain approximately the same, since the salary of the SAME RESIDENTS would be around the same range as 2 years back.
3. So the primary reason for a differential in after-tax income for the residents must be the tax-cuts imposed by the Senator.

My reasons for rejecting choice E were:
1. The recent change in estate laws does not say how recent were the laws.
2. It says nothing for the demographic of the population. Higher income families might have moved in and lower income moved out.

To me, the choice E did not seem as conclusive as choice C.

Can anyone help me with the reasoning given in the explanation?
Attachments
CR_Doubt.JPG
Doubt Screenshot
Do your best without expectation!
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 443
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:33 pm
Thanked: 5 times

by Vignesh.4384 » Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:02 am
iafmaverick,

IMO E.

C does not strengthen the conclusion in anyway .
Weare not interested in the no of people .. The passage is not talking about the number of ppl.

Year1 : Lets say u earn 1000 $ and the tax is 20%. Therefore u will hav 800 $ after tax

Year 2 : Lets say u earn 1000 $ but the tax is not 10%. Therefor u wil have 900$ in your hand.

This is wat the senator is trinh 2 say .. the percapita income has increased because tax % has reduced .
To strengthen the conclusion we hav to prove that the Pretax amount is the same.

If the pre tax u earned in year 2 was 2000$ and the rate of tax 20% ..
The anuthors conclusion that decrese in the tax cause the rise in per captia income wil be weakened..

Hope u understand

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 3:55 am

by john83.amar » Wed May 11, 2016 12:33 pm
The official answer is E. But I don't understand why? Can anyone explain