一个题，求明白的解释

hanshipeng · 发表于 2011-11-4 13:44:47

When people evade income taxes by not declaring taxable income, a vicious cycle results. Tax evasion forces lawmakers to raise income tax rates, which causes the tax burden on non-evading taxpayers to become heavier. This, in turn, encourages even more taxpayers to evade income taxes by hiding taxable income.

The vicious cycle described above could not result unless which of the following were true?

(A)   An increase in tax rates tends to function as an incentive for taxpayers to try to increase their pretax incomes.
(B)   Some methods for detecting tax evaders, and thus recovering some tax revenue lost through evasion, bring in more than they cost, but their success rate varies from years to year.
(C)   When lawmakers establish income tax rates in order to generate a certain level of revenue, they do not allow adequately for revenue that will be lost through evasion.
(D)   No one who routinely hides some taxable income can be induced by a lowering of tax rates to stop hiding such income unless fines for evaders are raised at the same time.
(E)   Taxpayers do not differ from each other with respect to the rate of taxation that will cause them to evade taxes

答案C

hanshipeng · 发表于 2011-11-13 12:25:32

自己顶一个

根儿哥1989 · 发表于 2011-11-14 15:55:45

这道题我错选了A选项，请问这题应该怎么分析呢？

duanxs · 发表于 2012-2-18 22:48:44

只有A合理些，其它均负面！

kylinhtq · 发表于 2012-2-19 01:14:48

选C 题目的意思是因为越来越多的人逃税税率上升来避免税的流失，这样反而加重了这个恶性循环

因此只有C中的法律规定者容不得有漏税而采取提高税率所致

sdcar2010 · 发表于 2012-2-19 09:59:58

Necessary assumption. Use negation.

If you negate C) you have:
When lawmakers establish income tax rates in order to generate a certain level of revenue, they DO allow adequately for revenue that will be lost through evasion.
If this is the case, then the so-called vicious cycle stops because its trigger is gone. Why? If the lawmakers did anticipate such evasion and they did set the tax rate accordingly to compensate for such evasion, they would not have to raise the tax rate any more. The conclusion falls apart.

E is irrelevant since if you negate E, no harm is done to the argument.

E simply says that the opinion of each tax-payer towards the rate of taxation as a cause for tax evasion. It does NOT say what kind of opinion that is, good or bad. If you base your answer on only one side of the opinion (bad opinion), you are bring in outside information, thus, NOT allowed in logical reasoning.

In fact, by choosing E, you would commit a logical fallacy.

christete · 发表于 2012-5-16 18:03:11

你好，sdcar，你的回答帮了我很多哈，谢谢。

这道题你的解释我有地方还是不大明白。
set the tax rate 是说设一个更高的税率呢？还是说固定住当前的税率。

If the lawmakers did anticipate such evasion and they did set the tax rate accordingly to compensate for such evasion, they would not have to raise the tax rate any more. The conclusion falls apart.

Necessary assumption. Use negation.

If you negate C) you have:
When lawmakers establish income tax rates in order to generate a certain level of revenue, they DO allow adequately for revenue that will be lost through evasion.
If this is the case, then the so-called vicious cycle stops because its trigger is gone. Why? If the lawmakers did anticipate such evasion and they did set the tax rate accordingly to compensate for such evasion, they would not have to raise the tax rate any more. The conclusion falls apart.

E is irrelevant since if you negate E, no harm is done to the argument.

E simply says that the opinion of each tax-payer towards the rate of taxation as a cause for tax evasion. It does NOT say what kind of opinion that is, good or bad. If you base your answer on only one side of the opinion (bad opinion), you are bring in outside information, thus, NOT allowed in logical reasoning.

In fact, by choosing E, you would commit a logical fallacy.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2012/2/19 9:59:58)

sdcar2010 · 发表于 2012-5-16 22:18:10

They set a tax rate, higher than the current one, because they knew before hand that not everyone would pay tax.

你好，sdcar，你的回答帮了我很多哈，谢谢。

这道题你的解释我有地方还是不大明白。
set the tax rate 是说设一个更高的税率呢？还是说固定住当前的税率。

If the lawmakers did anticipate such evasion and they did set the tax rate accordingly to compensate for such evasion, they would not have to raise the tax rate any more. The conclusion falls apart.

-- by 会员 christete (2012/5/16 18:03:11)

本贴相关题目 OG-2015V-CR-69 | GMATPrep-2007E2-CR-50 (MWWT)

相关帖子

更多相关帖子

一个题，求明白的解释

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()