Question

Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases one's risk of lung cancer.But no one thinks the governement should impose financial impediments on the owning of parrots because of this apparent danger.So by the same token, the government should not levy analogous special taxes on hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes, or motorcycles.

Each of the following principles is logically consistent with the columnist's conclusion EXCEPT:


(A) The government should fund education by taxing non essential sports equipment and recreational gear.

(B) The government should not tax those who avoid dangerous activities and adopt heathly lifestyles.

(C) The government should create financial disincentives to deter participation in activities it deems dangerous.

(D) The government should not create financial disincentives for people to race cars or climb mountain, even though these are dangerous activities

(E) The government would be justified in levying taxes to provide food and shelter for those who cannt afford to pay for them.

Answer 1

Option (C) is not consistent with the columnist's view as it suggests the government should deter dangerous activities with financial disincentives, which the columnist argues against.

Step-by-step explanation:

The student's question falls under the umbrella of social studies, specifically related to government policy and economics. When analyzing the columnist's conclusion which argues against government imposition of special taxes on activities deemed dangerous like owning parrots, hunting, or riding motorcycles, we must consider the underlying principles of taxation and government intervention.

Answering the student's query, the principle that is NOT consistent with the columnist's conclusion is:

• (C) The government should create financial disincentives to deter participation in activities it deems dangerous.

This principle stands in direct contradiction to the columnist’s assertion that the government should not place special taxes on activities just because they are perceived as dangerous, drawing a parallel to the example of not taxing parrot owners despite potential health risks.