GMAT考试写作指导：Argument范文三十

　　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.