-
YellowSapphire
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:57 pm
- Location: India
- Thanked: 1 times
Political Commentator: During the previous presidential administration, members of congress approved large tax cuts and yet the economy today stands in shambles. During the current economic crisis, those who espouse large tax cuts as an economic stimulus should consider the failure of tax cuts during the past eight years to prevent the current economic recession as conclusive evidence that tax cuts will not help the country escape from its current economic troubles.
Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above?
A) The large tax cuts of the past administration targeted the capital gains on the financial investments of the ultra-rich while proponents of tax cuts today suggest cutting payroll taxes for both employers and employees.
B) Economists from across the spectrum now agree that tax cuts helped stem the country's most severe recession in history, which occurred about 70 years ago prior to industrialization in this country.
C) Economists from across the spectrum predict that if Congress fails to pass the tax-cut legislation, which also includes government spending and much more, it could well be 15 years before the economy escapes the current recession.
D) Economists from across the spectrum agree that these tax cuts will add less to the fiscal deficit than the tax cuts of the previous administration.
E) During the most recent political campaign cycle, which featured many deceptive political attacks, the governor of a prosperous state attacked those who opposed tax cuts by citing his own state's ostensible prosperity.
OA: A
the failure of the past administration's tax cuts to prevent the economic recession => Reason
tax cuts will not help the country escape from its current economic troubles => Conclusion
tax cut => means common people have to pay less tax. Is it right?
Can someone explain it? I don't understand what this is the answer.
Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above?
A) The large tax cuts of the past administration targeted the capital gains on the financial investments of the ultra-rich while proponents of tax cuts today suggest cutting payroll taxes for both employers and employees.
B) Economists from across the spectrum now agree that tax cuts helped stem the country's most severe recession in history, which occurred about 70 years ago prior to industrialization in this country.
C) Economists from across the spectrum predict that if Congress fails to pass the tax-cut legislation, which also includes government spending and much more, it could well be 15 years before the economy escapes the current recession.
D) Economists from across the spectrum agree that these tax cuts will add less to the fiscal deficit than the tax cuts of the previous administration.
E) During the most recent political campaign cycle, which featured many deceptive political attacks, the governor of a prosperous state attacked those who opposed tax cuts by citing his own state's ostensible prosperity.
OA: A
the failure of the past administration's tax cuts to prevent the economic recession => Reason
tax cuts will not help the country escape from its current economic troubles => Conclusion
tax cut => means common people have to pay less tax. Is it right?
Can someone explain it? I don't understand what this is the answer.
Yellow Sapphire
Source, according to YellowSapphire, is a company called Platinum GMAT. (Note: the website is not the source - that's the location. The source is the name of the company or person who made the material.)
