GMAT考试写作指导:Argument范文三十-查字典英语网
搜索1
所在位置: 查字典英语网 >留学英语 > GMAT > GMAT写作 > GMAT考试写作指导:Argument范文三十

GMAT考试写作指导:Argument范文三十

发布时间:2016-03-02  编辑:查字典英语网小编

  21. The conclusion of this editorial is that the government should lower property taxes

  for railroad companies. The first reason given is that railroads spend billions per year

  maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The second reason is that shipping goods by

  rail is cost-effective and environmentally sound. This argument is unconvincing for

  several reasons.

  First of alt, the argument depends upon a misleading comparison between railroad

  and truck company expenditures. Although trucking companies do not pay property tax

  on roads they use, they do pay such taxes on the yards, warehouses and maintenance

  facilities they own. And while trucking companies pay only a portion of road

  maintenance costs, this is because they are not sole users of public roads. Railroad

  companies shoulder the entire burden of maintenance and taxes on their own facilities

  and tracks; but they distribute these costs to other users through usage fees.

  In addition, the author assumes that property taxes should be structured to provide

  incentives for cost-effective and environmentally beneficial business practices. This

  assumption is questionable because property taxes are normally structured to reflect the

  value of property. Moreover, the author seems to think that cost-effectiveness and

  environmental soundness are equally relevant to the question of tax relief. However,

  these are separate considerations. The environmental soundness of a practice might be

  relevant in determining tax structuring, but society does not compensate a business for

  its cost-efficiency.

  Splitting the issues of cost-efficiency and environmental impact highlights an

  ambiguity in the claim that railway shipping is more appropriate. On the one hand, it

  may be appropriate, or prudent, for me to ship furniture by rail because it is cost-

  effective; on the other hand, it might be appropriate, or socially correct, to encourage

  more railway shipping because it is environmentally sound. The argument thus trades

  on an equivocation between social correctness on the one hand, and personal or business

  prudence on the other.

  In sum, this argument is a confusion of weak comparisons, mixed issues and

  equivocal claims. I would not accept the conclusion without first determining: the

  factors relevant to tax structure, whether specific tax benefits should accrue to

  property as well as to income and capital gains taxes, whether railway shipping

  really does provide greater social benefits, and whether it is correct to motivate more

  railway shipping on this basis.

  

点击显示

推荐文章
猜你喜欢
附近的人在看
推荐阅读
拓展阅读
  • 大家都在看
  • 小编推荐
  • 猜你喜欢
  •