Urban planner: When a city loses population due to migration, property taxes in that city tend to rise. This is because there are then fewer residents paying to maintain an infrastructure that was designed to support more people. Rising property taxes, in turn, drive more residents away, compounding the problem. Since the city of Stonebridge is starting to lose population, the city government should therefore refrain from raising property taxes.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the urban planner's argument?
If Stonebridge does not raise taxes on its residents to maintain its infrastructure, the city will become much less attractive to live in as that infrastructure decays.
Stonebridge at present benefits from grants provided by the national government to help maintain certain parts of its infrastructure.
If there is a small increase in property taxes in Stonebridge and a slightly larger proportion of total revenue than at present is allocated to infrastructure maintenance, the funding will be adequate for that purpose.
Demographers project that the population of a region that includes Stonebridge will start to increase substantially within the next several years.
The property taxes in Stonebridge are significantly lower than those in many larger cities.
因为tax上升会导致更多离开,所以S城不应该涨tax。
A 如果tax不涨(结论),那么副作用出现。导致人口可能进步变少。。削弱
B S基础设施经济来源 无关
C 结论是funding足够了 和推理关系不大
D D认为一个区域的人口会大幅增长,这个区域包括S城。 没提到和tax的关系哦
E 无关比较
og给的解释abd三个选项都削弱了,只是bd削弱力度没有a大
Flaw:
1. Rising property taxes may not drive residents away.
2. False negation.
Rising taxes ⇒ lose population.
Refraining from raising taxes ⇏not lose population
直接推理 就完事
D 很具有迷惑性,可是这跟文中的推理一点关系都没