When a city experiences a sharp decline in population, the city's tax revenues, which pay for such city services as police protection and maintenance of water lines, also decrease. The area to be policed and the number and length of the water lines to be maintained, however, do not decrease. Attempting to make up the tax revenue lost by raising tax rates is not feasible, since higher tax rates would cause even more residents to leave.
The information given most strongly supports which of the following general claims?
If, in a city with sharply declining population, police protection and water line maintenance do not deteriorate, some other service previously provided by the city will deteriorate or be eliminated.
If a city's tax rates are held stable over a period of time, neither the population nor the levels of city services provided will tend to decline over that period.
If a city's population declines sharply, police protection and water line maintenance are the services that deteriorate most immediately and most markedly.
A city that suffers revenue losses because of a sharp decline in population can make up some of the lost tax revenue by raising tax rates, provided the city's tax rates are low in relation to those of other cities.
A city that is losing residents because tax rates are perceived as too high by those residents can reverse this population trend by bringing its tax rates down to a more moderate level.
tough to choose between A and D. However, since question talks about no relation to tax rates of other cities therefore it could be simply that tax hikes are just like last nail in coffin and make more residents leave the city irrespective whether tax rates are lower compared to other cities.
Further, A gets more strong considering population is sharply 'declining', therefore eventually tax revenue would be low enough to cause one or more services to deteriorate.
税收减少,其中一部分不变则另一部分一定会减少
A 的后半句是怎么推理来的?? some other service previously provided by the city will deteriorate or be eliminated.
为什么D不对呢?即使提高税率以后还是会比其他地方低,居民就不会搬走了。。。其实觉得A和D都不一定,但相比A,D貌似更有理有据一些。。。A的话,总数减少,某些不能减少,剩下的就一定减少?
D的主要问题在于,现在人口已经显著下降了,如果还加税的话,那么更容易促使人们离开(原文中说的逻辑)。不管这个地方和别的地方比到底税高还是低,因为大批人离开已经是既定事实,你再加税,肯定更多人走了嘛~
?
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
读问题读问题!!!!这是演绎推理啊啊啊!!!