medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Recent data shows that countries with the highest levels of corporate taxation also have the most robust social safety nets. Some economists argue that high corporate taxes provide the revenue needed for these programs. However, it is just as likely that a strong social safety net creates a stable environment that allows high corporate tax rates to be sustained without driving away business.
The argument's primary purpose is to
- suggest that an observed correlation may run in the causal direction opposite to the one first proposed
- show that two phenomena once thought closely related are in fact entirely and wholly independent of each other
- argue that high corporate taxes are the single principal cause of the social stability a country enjoys
- cast doubt on the basic factual accuracy of the underlying data the economists chiefly rely upon here
- establish that strong social safety nets are simply impossible to sustain without high corporate taxes
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these premises?
- Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the authors' conclusion?
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ