With Proposition 13, if you bought

[ramiy]

With Proposition 13, if you bought your house 11 years ago for $75,000, your property tax would be approximately $914 a year (1 percent of $75,000 increased by 2 percent each year for 11 years); and if your neighbor bought an identical house next door to you for $200,000 this year, his tax would be $2,000 (1 percent of $200,000). Without Proposition 13, both you and your neighbor would pay $6,000 a year in property taxes (3 percent of $200,000).

Which of the following is the conclusion for which the author most likely is arguing in the passage above?

(A) Proposition 13 is unconstitutional because it imposes an unequal tax on properties of equal value.

(B) If Proposition 13 is repealed, every homeowner is likely to experience a substantial increase in property taxes.

© By preventing inflation from driving up property values, Proposition 13 has saved homeowners thousands of dollars in property taxes.

(D) If Proposition 13 is not repealed, identical properties will continue to be taxed at different rates.

(E) Proposition 13 has benefited some homeowners more than others.

[upal201]

Imo E

 

Oa?

[Kirri]

(A) Proposition 13 is unconstitutional because it imposes an unequal tax on properties of equal value. -Does identical house has equal value?

(B) If Proposition 13 is repealed, every homeowner is likely to experience a substantial increase in property taxes. -correct

© By preventing inflation from driving up property values, Proposition 13 has saved homeowners thousands of dollars in property taxes. No evidence

(D) If Proposition 13 is not repealed, identical properties will continue to be taxed at different rates. - actually rate is same 1 %

(E) Proposition 13 has benefited some homeowners more than others. No evidence

[tpcool]

I think it is B

[mission800]

when we say EVERY homowner (in B), isnt EVERY too extreme a term ? what if there are different types of houses that fall into different income tax rate slabs ? (since ques does not state about types of houses or that this proposition is valid for all classes)

 

if, for example, a million dollar house is being taxed at 5% by proposition 13, and when repealed, it's taxed at fixed 3%, then ? or am i going haywire with assumptions ?

 

okay even if im wrong about this, how is E wrong? isnt the 75k homeowner getting a better deal currently with proposition 13 ???

[sh_vivek]

imo D.

The rates are different in two cases. In one case the rate is 1%, followed by 2% increment every year, upto 11 year

In second case the rate is 1% every year.

[reply2spg]

Imo A

[finsisher]

E it should be

[avixorld]

Its B

[divineacclivity]

Its B

 

Experts,

Could you please explain why's B correct?

B: If Proposition 13 is repealed, every homeowner is likely to experience a substantial increase in property taxes.

With Proposition 13.

a 75,000 flat (11 years ago) --> $914 tax

a 200,000 flat (now) --> $2000

Option B is too specific to be correct for the argument. Option B says "every" homeowner whereas the argument says specifically about houses worth 75k & 2L. Even if the argument isn't talking specifically about these numbers, there'd still be a chance of house-owners with different ratio/kind of combinations e.g. 75k & 75k or 75k & 80k etc. on which the preposition 13 wouldn't apply atall. e.g. "every house-owner" would include a farm-house owner who doesn't have a neighbour, maybe.

So, going by the above logic, I rejected option B and chose option E since argument mentions:

1. 1 percent of $75,000 increased by 2 percent each year for 11 years

2. 1 percent of $200,000

In the second case, the increment of 2% isn't specifically mentioned, so, second case benefits more. Even though option E requires a bit of assumptions too but it is far better than option B because "every" house-owner would fall prey to many specific cases.

Please explain. Thanks in advance.