medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Economist: Reducing corporate tax rates is often touted as a way to stimulate job growth. However, in every year that rates were reduced over the last decade, unemployment actually stayed the same or increased. Therefore, the claim that tax cuts lead to job growth is unsupported.
The claim that unemployment stayed the same or increased plays which one of the following roles in the economist's argument?
- It is evidence the economist marshals to cast doubt on a widely repeated economic assertion.
- It is an intermediate conclusion the economist infers from observing how corporations behave.
- It is the principal conclusion the economist sets out to establish.
- It is a concession granted to those who favor reducing corporate tax rates.
- It is a counterexample meant to show that lowering tax rates can never affect employment.
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