扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / Prep2012-CR-36
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?
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.
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.
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.
Wealthy individuals who donate money to charitable and educational institutions are the only individuals who donate money to such institutions.
Income tax laws should be changed to make donations to charitable and educational institutions the only permissible deductions from taxable income.
怎么没有说呢，有一个限定条件是说，only donate because of the provisions in the law…就是说捐只是因为可以避税
怎么没有说呢，有一个限定条件是说，only donate because of the provisions in the law…就是说捐只是因为可以避税登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
只有A选项明确说到富人不再捐原来这么多钱，直接弥补了原文P&C之间的gap，且取非能削弱结论；
但B/D选项分别提到了捐赠的钱是机构唯一的收入来源/富人是这些机构唯一的捐赠者，都没有【明确】说到是否减少捐赠的钱，取非不一定削弱结论，排除
一定一定要弥补整个argument没有写出来的gap：这些wealth people捐款的原因就是能降税，不能降税他们就不会再捐了。
eliminate deductions from taxable income for donations意思是取消对慈善机构捐赠的税收减免，也就是说向慈善机构捐钱也需要交钱
逻辑链：富人也不能够税收减免了，所以很多机构都发展不下去了因为资金不够
gap：至少有些富人开始不捐钱了
错选了B 太绝对化了，不一定是唯一的渠道，只是说别的机关最大限度地捐了钱，而慈善这一块突然少了，所以钱不够了
choice a, 在没有联邦收入法的刺激之下，至少一部分富人不会像有刺激的情况之下捐那么多钱。correct，取非，没有刺激的情况下，所有富人还是跟之前一样捐那么多钱-> weaken the conclsuion
choice b, 个人通过联邦收入法的捐款是慈善组织唯一的收入来源。incorrect，不管是不是唯一收入来源，只要这部分捐款减少了就会影响到服务甚至关门。 choice d同理
D 富人是唯一来源，但不排除减税后他们依然捐款 所以排除
A 确定了一些捐献者会减少捐款的可能
捐款无法带来降税的好处==》many慈善机构就要减少慈善活动甚至有些要关门
一定一定要弥补整个argument没有写出来的gap：这些wealth people捐款的原因就是能降税，不能降税他们就不会再捐了。
至于这些富人捐的税总共有多少...占整个慈善机构funding的多少...等等等的都不重要
因为来自富人的这笔捐款少了就是少了 不可否认
in other words, if it is NOT true, then the argument is invalid.
B取非：因为可以抵税才捐赠的人不是这些慈善机构的钱的唯一来源（慈善机构的钱有其他来源）。钱不能扣减--〉还是有人捐赠--〉这些捐赠的人如果捐少了，慈善机构还是可能会减少服务或者关门；这些人没有捐少，慈善机构不受影响。SO if B is not true, the argument is not necessarily invalid.
C:慈善机构服务减少甚至关门
问assumption？
A 钱不能扣减--〉discourage捐赠者，捐赠者捐的钱变少--〉慈善机构经营不下去
B 错选。 因为可以抵税才捐赠的人是这些慈善机构的钱的唯一来源。钱不能扣减--〉不捐赠--〉慈善机构经营不下去
B取非：因为可以抵税才捐赠的人不是这些慈善机构的钱的唯一来源（慈善机构的钱有其他来源）。钱不能扣减--〉还是有人捐赠--〉慈善机构不一定会减少服务或者关门 SO why is B wrong？？？
if this is false, then you know that there are other sources of funding, too.
that doesn't destroy the argument, though: even if rich individuals are only one source of donations, a decrement in the $ amount that they donate could still lead to a reduction in services.
if that statement is false, then this means that no rich people would reduce their donations. (again, don't try to make a "rule" for this; just ask yourself what it would mean for the statement to be false.)
if that's the case, then clearly the argument makes no sense anymore, because removing the deductions would have no effect at all in that case.
D 捐钱的富人是唯一的捐赠人 (税法改变后，虽然不再对富人的应税收入进行扣减，但是富人依然可能会捐钱，毕竟富人可能并不在乎税法给予的任何减免政策，他们只是出于善心，所以，这样不能加强机构倒闭的可能）