medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
The argument that high taxes on corporations reduce employment assumes that corporations will pass the costs to employees. Claim [1]: However, if consumer demand remains high, corporations can maintain employment by absorbing the tax into their profit margins. Claim [2]: Many of the largest corporations currently have record-high profit margins that could easily accommodate such taxes. Therefore, the predicted rise in unemployment is not inevitable.
What is the logical role of Claim [2] in the argument?
- It supplies an empirical observation that makes the absorption scenario realistic, thereby supporting the closing verdict.
- It is the position the author ultimately wants the reader to accept.
- It yields a point to those who favor the corporate tax in order to soften the author's stance.
- It is a claim the author derives logically from the preceding conditional about consumer demand.
- It accurately notes that big firms are highly profitable, but that fact is offered to explain why taxes were proposed in the first place.
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