195. A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate deductions from taxable income for donations a taxpayer has made to charitable and educational institutions. If this change were adopted, wealthy individuals would no longer be permitted such deductions. Therefore, many charitable and educational institutions would have to reduce services, and some would have to close their doors.
The argument above assumes which of the following?
(A) Without the incentives offered by federal income tax laws, at least some wealthy individuals would not donate as much money to charitable and educational institutions as they otherwise would have.
(B) Money contributed by individuals who make their donations because of provisions in the federal tax laws provides the only source of funding for many charitable and educational institutions.
(C) The primary reason for not adopting the proposed change in the federal income tax laws cited above is to protect wealthy individuals from having to pay higher taxes.
(D) Wealthy individuals who donate money to charitable and educational institutions are the only individuals who donate money to such institutions.
(E) Income tax laws should be changed to make donations to charitable and educational institutions the only permissible deductions from taxable income
D说只有富人才和捐钱，题干说如果富人不捐钱，慈善机构就要关门，为何不是一个assumption？
我就是看了这个贴才更加的不明白
原文说： federal income tax laws 可能去掉一些捐款给慈善和教育机构的富人的税收的减免，这样呢，富人就不捐钱了，从而呢，服务就少了，可能要关门了。
前提是什么
如果富人是唯一的捐款来源，这样的法律一实施，富人没有税收减免了，不愿捐款了，因此服务少了，慈善机构要关门了。
上面的理解有什么错误吗？
LSE说：即使他们是唯一的捐助者，那么跟文中说的减免税收没有任何关系呀！他们不受减免税收的影响的话，解释没有优惠政策，他们仍然捐助的话，那些机构也不会关门啊！
我觉的不是啊，有联系啊，因为都是富人啊，富人是公共元素啊，如果法律对他们起效，当然会影响他们是否捐款啊
明白了
D如果他们不免税了还继续捐款的话，那就没有和题目没有关系了。
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |