A good one to discuss

[cheeku04]

Abolish taxes, and real taxpayers would find that their disposable incomes have increased. Abolish taxes, and public employees would find that their incomes have disappeared.
Which one of the following is a logical conclusion that depends on information in both of the statements above?
(A) Public offices should be abolished so that disposable incomes will rise.
(B) The only real taxpayers are those who would have more to spend if they did not pay taxes.
(C) Public employees are not real taxpayers.
(D) Public employees’ incomes should not be taxed since they come from taxes.
(E) If there were no taxes, then public employees could not be paid.

[madhur_ahuja]

IMO C

[sanp_l]

C and E stand close to win.
Since the question as ks for conclusion that would depend on both the statements, i choose C.
If taxes are abolished, disposable incomes should increase for the taxpayer where as for a public employee the income is disappearing. Hence, public employees aren't real taxpayers.

Option E is based only on the last sentence, not on both.

Hence, I Choose C.

[shahdevine]

Abolish taxes, and real taxpayers would find that their disposable incomes have increased. Abolish taxes, and public employees would find that their incomes have disappeared.
Which one of the following is a logical conclusion that depends on information in both of the statements above?
(A) Public offices should be abolished so that disposable incomes will rise.
(B) The only real taxpayers are those who would have more to spend if they did not pay taxes.
(C) Public employees are not real taxpayers.
(D) Public employees’ incomes should not be taxed since they come from taxes.
(E) If there were no taxes, then public employees could not be paid.

not to confuse, but this is a standard categorical syllogism.

All m are p
All m are not s
Therefore all s are not p

ex. All terriers are dogs, while no cats are dogs, so no cats are terriers.

m=abolish taxes
p=real taxpayers...
s=public employees...

C is right answer...its an unconditionally valid syllogism

[ogbeni]

I'd have gone with E but I think I'm wrong. Look forward to reading the Official Explanation

[life is a test]

I am stuck between A and E...more inclined to go with E since A seems too strong...

B - makes a big leap
C - only talks about one of the 2 groups
D - irrelevant

very curious to see the OA!

[umaa]

Abolish taxes, and real taxpayers would find that their disposable incomes have increased. Abolish taxes, and public employees would find that their incomes have disappeared.
Which one of the following is a logical conclusion that depends on information in both of the statements above?
(A) Public offices should be abolished so that disposable incomes will rise.
(B) The only real taxpayers are those who would have more to spend if they did not pay taxes.
(C) Public employees are not real taxpayers.
(D) Public employees’ incomes should not be taxed since they come from taxes.
(E) If there were no taxes, then public employees could not be paid.

IMO C

A - It undermines the argument.

B - ONLY; We need a logical concludion from both the premises

C - Correct; Public employees and real tax payers are different.

D - Irrelevant

E - The argument is about abolished taxes.

[life is a test]

This question has already been posted before. A good explanation given by mayonnai5e at https://www.beatthegmat.com/1000-cr-t3249.html

[micheal_kr]

It seems to me that the right answer is C