Q17 - Mullen has proposed to raise

[peg_city]

What is the difference between A and B?

Is it that A says 'Do not vote,' while B says 'Do not put any credence'??

Thanks again

[noah]

You're welcome!

This question is asking us to match the flaw - so, first step, find the flaw!

To paraphrase: The conclusion is that Mullen's proposal - to tax the rich - doesn't deserve consideration. Why? Because he is rich.

What's the flaw? Using common sense, what would you say to a rich person who wants to tax the rich? You'd either think the person is stupid in that she's increasing taxes on herself, or that he's very generous to give a greater portion of his wealth to the government. If anything, we should give Mullen's proposal more respect, since it seems to NOT be a self-serving proposal.

(B) has this same flaw. Dr. Han is a smoker, so her proposal to ban smoking will inconvenience her - why should we not give it any credence?

As for the wrong answers:

(A) is reversed and not flawed - it makes sense to doubt Smith's proposal since he'd benefit from it (a subsidy for a working parent like himself).

(C) does not incorrectly ask us to doubt an idea which would actually serve the person who came up with it. (C) suggests we doubt someone for previous acts.

(D) is similar to (B) - Timm's daughter would benefit from the proposal, so it makes sense to doubt it.

(E) is far afield. It has nothing to do with whether the proposer benefits from the proposal. Come on, (E) - you can do better than that!

[lhermary]

Can you go into more reasoning as why A is wrong and B is right. I'm not quite getting why they are different.

Thanks

[timmydoeslsat]

The reasoning in the stimulus is that:

- Mullen proposes to raise taxes on rich.

- Mullen's tax records show he made large profits on heavy investments.

Therefore, his proposal does not deserve consideration.


This argument would be so much better had Mullen's proposal been not to raise taxes on the rich. In that situation, it would make sense to doubt his proposal, as he has a vested benefit in seeing that outcome realized.

In this argument, however, Mullen would actually be the one presumably affected in a negative manner by having his taxes go up. So he is a proposing an idea that is actually, on its face, not in his favor. This is not conducive to the idea that his proposal does not deserve consideration. If anything, it shows that it does deserve consideration.

A) Smith proposed legislation to subsidize child care for working parents. Smith is a working parent. So we can see that Smith has an interest in this legislation being passed. He will benefit from its passing.

In the stimulus, Mullen is not benefiting from his proposal, while Smith is.

So this is not a match.

B) Dr. Han has a proposal to ban smoking in all public places. Dr. Han is a heavy smoker. This is matching our stimulus. Dr. Han is not benefiting from this proposal. It bringing on negative affects for the proposer. So why would we not place credence in this proposal?

[mornincounselor]

I picked (B) over (D) because the prompt is about a way Mullen himself has been advantaged, same as (B), where (D) is about a family member benefiting.

Is this the difference?

[tommywallach]

Hmm. That doesn't make sense, because there's no "benefit" to Dr. Han in terms of smoking. The issue here is less about benefit than about hypocrisy.

In the original example, Mullen is being accused of being a hypocrite, not trying to advantage himself. In fact, if he made a bunch of money in this way in the past, the odds are good he would continue to do so in the future, meaning he would be disadvantaging himself in the long run.

This is what Han is doing too, because if his ban were to pass, he would no longer be able to smoke!

In (D), Timm is going to end up giving a direct benefit to his daughter (in this case, you are correct that it's about benefit).

Hope that helps!

-t