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.
B选项错在哪儿呢?
我觉得B项错在,该假设下,所有的慈善组织都会被close掉。而不是题中提到的‘have to reduce services, and some would have to close their doors’。
但是选项也只是说only source 只是针对many institutions啊,没说所有机构only source都是这些纳税人
首先,题中的结论是‘many charitable and educational institutions would have to reduce services’,而不是针对所有的慈善机构。其次,从主流的解题思路出发,这道题的逻辑gap在于从wealthy individuals不再被允许捐赠所得税抵扣,推导到了结论--慈善机构会减少服务。所以能够bridge the gap的假设一定要提到wealthy individuals和慈善机构。还是不清楚的话,欢迎探讨wechat: wolvesjiang123。
B选项太激进了,如果这些捐款是这些机构唯一的财务来源的话,那么就不会出现题目里说的有一些机构要削减规模,甚至有的机构要关门了,那就是所有的这些机构就会关张大吉。
A稍微温和一些,说没有这中纳税方面的鼓励以后,至少会有一部分富人不会像原来捐的那么多,会对这些教育机构造成影响,但是不会让们全都死掉
我试着解释一下哈。我认为 B 只是题目的小范围重复。B 选项的意思是因为 tax law 才捐款的人是慈善机构的唯一资金来源。但是题目中的 gap 还是没有被解释。即使是唯一的资金来源,如果这帮人并没有因为 tax law 改变而改变他们的捐款数额,那么还是不会达到最后那个结论。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论