The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions

[AbeNeedsAnswers]

Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is to tax them in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes. Therefore, the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.

Which of the following is an assumption of the economist's argument?

(A) Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.
(B) Country Y's air pollutant emissions world not fall significantly it they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.
(C) Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in an pollutant emissions.
(D) Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiently
(E) Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting �xed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.

E

[DavidG@VeritasPrep]

Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is to tax them in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes. Therefore, the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.

Which of the following is an assumption of the economist's argument?

(A) Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.
(B) Country Y's air pollutant emissions world not fall significantly it they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.
(C) Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in an pollutant emissions.
(D) Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiently
(E) Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting �xed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.

E

Conclusion: The best way to reduce air pollution is enforce upper limits on emissions
Premise: Taxing pollution typically works best, but politicians are opposed to a tax.

Well, it's clear that there are answers to the pollution problem. The bigger issue is one of political will. Politicians don't want to raise taxes. Would they be okay with setting upper limits on emissions? This is what E addresses.

[DavidG@VeritasPrep]

Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is to tax them in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes. Therefore, the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.

Which of the following is an assumption of the economist's argument?

(A) Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.
(B) Country Y's air pollutant emissions world not fall significantly it they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.
(C) Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in an pollutant emissions.
(D) Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiently
(E) Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting �xed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.

E

You could also try negation.

E negated: Policy makers in Country Y DO oppose setting �xed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes. Well if policy makers are as opposed to upper limits on emissions as they'd been on taxing emissions, it stands to reason that the new policy won't be implemented. The correct answer, when negated, should undermine the conclusion, and so E is correct.

[jabhatta]

Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is to tax them in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes. Therefore, the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.

Which of the following is an assumption of the economist's argument?

(A) Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.
(B) Country Y's air pollutant emissions world not fall significantly it they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.
(C) Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in an pollutant emissions.
(D) Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiently
(E) Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting �xed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.

E

You could also try negation.

E negated: Policy makers in Country Y DO oppose setting �xed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes. Well if policy makers are as opposed to upper limits on emissions as they'd been on taxing emissions, it stands to reason that the new policy won't be implemented. The correct answer, when negated, should undermine the conclusion, and so E is correct.

Why is A wrong ? Seems like A will have to be true for this statement "policy makers strongly oppose new taxes"

[DavidG@VeritasPrep]

Economist: The most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is to tax them in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. But in Country Y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes. Therefore, the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in Country Y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.

Which of the following is an assumption of the economist's argument?

(A) Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.
(B) Country Y's air pollutant emissions world not fall significantly it they were taxed in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause.
(C) Policy makers in Country Y strongly favor reductions in an pollutant emissions.
(D) Country Y's policy makers believe that air pollutant emissions should be reduced with maximum economic efficiently
(E) Policy makers in Country Y do not oppose setting �xed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.

E

You could also try negation.

E negated: Policy makers in Country Y DO oppose setting �xed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes. Well if policy makers are as opposed to upper limits on emissions as they'd been on taxing emissions, it stands to reason that the new policy won't be implemented. The correct answer, when negated, should undermine the conclusion, and so E is correct.

Why is A wrong ? Seems like A will have to be true for this statement "policy makers strongly oppose new taxes"

Pay close to attention to details in the language: Policy makers in Country Y oppose all new taxes equally strongly, regardless of any benefits they may provide.

They oppose all new taxes equally? So they're just as opposed to taxes on liquor as taxes on, say, diapers? How could we possibly assume that? Even if they're opposed to all taxes, isn't it possible that they oppose some taxes more strongly than others?