Politician: Requiring city residents to pay taxes to subsidize the city's public transportation system is not at all unfair, even...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Assumption

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

Politician: Requiring city residents to pay taxes to subsidize the city's public transportation system is not at all unfair, even if they do not all personally use public transportation. Because public transportation allows many people to avoid driving, fewer cars are on the road. This means cleaner air and less traffic congestion, which benefit all city residents.

Which of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion of the politician's argument to be properly drawn?

It is fair to require everyone who benefits from public transportation to pay taxes to subsidize it.

People who use public transportation do not derive significant benefits from others' use of private transportation.

People living outside the city limits also use the city's public transportation system on a regular basis.

For most city residents, the main benefit of public transportation is cleaner air and less traffic congestion.

The fairness of a proposed tax is only one of the factors that a city should consider before imposing it on users and nonusers of public transportation.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Requiring city residents to pay taxes to subsidize the city's public transportation system is not at all unfair, even if they do not all personally use public transportation.	What it says: Taxing all residents for public transit is fair, even if some don't use it What it does: Sets up the main claim the politician wants to defend What it is: Politician's main conclusion
Because public transportation allows many people to avoid driving, fewer cars are on the road.	What it says: Public transit reduces the number of cars on roads What it does: Starts explaining why the tax policy is fair by showing a direct effect What it is: Supporting premise Visualization: Before: 1000 cars on road daily → After public transit: 700 cars on road daily
This means cleaner air and less traffic congestion, which benefit all city residents.	What it says: Fewer cars create cleaner air and less traffic, helping everyone What it does: Connects the previous premise to show how non-users still benefit What it is: Supporting premise linking cause to universal benefit Visualization: 700 cars → cleaner air + less traffic → benefits for ALL 100,000 residents (even those who don't use transit)

Argument Flow:

The politician starts with the conclusion that taxing everyone for public transit is fair. Then provides a chain of reasoning: public transit reduces cars → fewer cars means cleaner air and less congestion → these benefits help all residents, justifying why everyone should pay.

Main Conclusion:

It's fair to tax all city residents to fund public transportation, even if they don't personally use it.

Logical Structure:

The argument relies on showing that non-users still receive indirect benefits from public transit through environmental and traffic improvements, which justifies their financial contribution through taxes.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Assumption - We need to find what must be true for the politician's conclusion to logically follow from the premises

Precision of Claims

The argument makes specific claims about causation (public transit → fewer cars → cleaner air/less congestion → benefits for ALL residents) and fairness (taxing everyone is justified)

Strategy

Since this is an assumption question, we need to identify gaps in the logical chain that could falsify the conclusion while respecting the given facts. The politician concludes that taxing all residents is fair because everyone benefits from cleaner air and less traffic. We should look for ways this reasoning could break down - what if the benefits don't actually reach everyone, or what if the costs outweigh benefits for some groups, or what if there are alternative explanations?

Answer Choices Explained

It is fair to require everyone who benefits from public transportation to pay taxes to subsidize it.

This choice bridges the critical gap in the politician's argument. The politician establishes that public transportation benefits everyone through cleaner air and less traffic congestion, then concludes that taxing everyone is fair. We need the principle that if you benefit from something, it's fair to pay for it. Without this assumption, the argument falls apart because universal benefit doesn't automatically justify universal taxation - there could be other fairness principles at play. This assumption is essential for the conclusion to follow logically.

People who use public transportation do not derive significant benefits from others' use of private transportation.

This choice focuses on whether public transit users benefit from private transportation, but this is irrelevant to the politician's argument. The argument is about whether it's fair to tax non-users of public transit, not about the comparative benefits different groups receive from different transportation modes. The politician's reasoning doesn't depend on this comparison at all.

People living outside the city limits also use the city's public transportation system on a regular basis.

This choice discusses people from outside the city using the transportation system, but this doesn't help the politician's argument. The conclusion is specifically about the fairness of taxing city residents, and the reasoning is that city residents benefit from reduced traffic and cleaner air. Whether outsiders also use the system is beside the point and doesn't strengthen the core logical connection.

For most city residents, the main benefit of public transportation is cleaner air and less traffic congestion.

This choice claims that cleaner air and less traffic congestion are the main benefits for most residents, but this isn't necessary for the argument. The politician only needs to show that these are universal benefits, not that they're the primary benefits. Even if residents got other significant benefits from public transportation, the fairness argument would still hold as long as everyone receives some benefit.

The fairness of a proposed tax is only one of the factors that a city should consider before imposing it on users and nonusers of public transportation.

This choice suggests that fairness is just one factor to consider when imposing taxes, but this actually weakens rather than helps the politician's argument. The politician is arguing definitively that the tax is fair - introducing other factors that might override fairness considerations doesn't support this conclusion. This assumption would make the argument less certain, not more logical.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...