In light of the skeptics’ objection, which of

John Robertson

Question: What supports govt's plan that a higher gas tax reduces traffic congestion, factoring in skeptic view that there is no other valid transpo other than cars, so gas demand is inelastic as long as (using logic from paragraph) no public/alt transpo exists

Supporting Information: Higher taxes on gas will make people drive less, reducing traffic congestion

Task: Find a way to overcome the lack of alternative transpo (the skeptic's view), IOT make higher gas taxes = less driving, for the reasoning of traffic congestion (important to note, not environmental concerns, not speeding concerns, just congestion)

A: CORRECT. At first reading without the other questions, it clearly addresses the issue that higher taxes w/o an alternative for transpo won't change current transpo methods. Seems good. After other readings, this is the only one that directly addresses the "in light of" skeptic's view, and the point of the tax-> lower traffic congestion

B: WRONG: Talks about the tax making residents switch transpo...... but to fuel efficient cars, and while that's great for the environment, this doesn't address traffic congestion, which is the whole point of the tax, and what the skeptic talked about, i.e. the purpose of this question

C. WRONG: States how cars are the only means of transportation, which supports the skeptic view, not the govt view/question.

D: WRONG: States how high residents will deal with higher taxes by cutting back on other expenses, so...they'll keep driving. Score one for the skeptic, gov't is wrong. This fails the task of this question, which is how to stop people from driving as much, and this states people will keep driving.

E: WRONG: States how cars are the only viable means of transportation. The skeptic stated this will happen. The gov'ts prediction will likely be incorrect in this case, and this doesn't address the task of the question .

Dec 18, 2016 • Comment