再来一道！！！

小黛安

Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents whose children attend private schools maintain that people making no use of a government service should not be forced to pay for it. Yet those who choose to buy bottled water rather than drink water from the local supply are not therefore exempt from paying taxes to maintain the local water supply.
Roger: Your argument is illogical. Children are required by law to attend school. Since school attendance is a matter not of choice, but of legal requirement, it is unfair for the government to force some parents to pay for it twice.
Which of the following responses by Gloria would best refute Roger’s charge that her argument is illogical?
(A) Although drinking water is not required by law, it is necessary for all people, and therefore my analogy is appropriate.
(B) Those who can afford the tuition at a high-priced private school can well bear the same tax burden as those whose children attend public schools.
(C) If tuition tax credits are granted, the tax burden on parents who choose public schools will rise to an intolerable level.
(D) The law does not say that parents must send their children to private schools, only that the children must attend some kind of school, whether public or private.
(E) Both bottled water and private schools are luxury items, and it is unfair that some citizens should be able to afford them while others cannot.

sdcar2010

A for sure since it strengthens the validity of the analog used in G's argument.

小黛安

我了解A,和D之间的差异。您的 意思是A 是strengthen 的，所以是对的。那D呢？D不对，是因为它只weaken Roger 的言论么？

sdcar2010

In fact, D strengthens Roger's argument.

小黛安

why？

smilingeye

嗯，我觉得D是无关选项，不存在加强或是削弱之说。

讨论的大前提本来就是“那些上私立学校的人”。Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents whose children attend private schools maintain that

yangtian718

像您这样的装逼帝敢不敢不在这搅混水？重复一遍哪个答案对哪个答案错有意思么？别人在这虚心求教，您不懂就别误导，请问D哪里strengthen Roger’s response了？
Gloria认为那些送孩子去私立学校的家长，并非不应该缴tuition tax，正如那些喝瓶装水的人也要缴taxes to maintain local water supply一样。
Roger认为家长送孩子去学校是一种法律强制而非自由选择，因此法律的强制使得家长承受额外税收费用是不合理的。
题目问的是以下哪个最有力地反驳了Roger的回应。A和D都是对Roger的反驳，但方式不同。
D是通过反对Roger观点的前提，也就是法律并没有规定家长一定要送孩子去私立学校——家长送孩子去什么学校同样是一种选择，以此来refute Roger的观点。
A是通过承认Roger观点的前提，但指出“人必须喝水”和“家长被规定必须送孩子去上学”两者同样是一种必然，因而两件事在税收方面应该遵循相同标准。
熟悉辩论技巧的同学应该知道，承认对方的逻辑前提并以此推演出与对手结论相反的结论，往往能比直接反驳对手的逻辑前提更有力地回击对手，故在选择best refute的时候应该是A。

sdcar2010

题目问的是以下哪个最有力地反驳了Roger的回应

It is better to say: which choice would strengthen that G's reasoning is not illogical.

D) confirms that "the children must attend some kind of school" according to the law.  Therefore, D) strengthens R's argument. In addition, D) does not touch whether G's claim is illogical or not.  A) on the other hand, focus on G's analogy, and strength it.

In debate, know the ISSUE, then argue.  In this question, the ISSUE is not R's statements.  It is the reasoning of G's statements.

In GMAT, there would not be two correct answers, whose degree of "correctness" is for the test-taker to decide.  ONLY one correct answer exists!

Finally, watch your mouth, would you?