GMAT考试写作指导：Argument范文六九

会计考友

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
8 o/ H" N) @/ P+ J' t4 X7 _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
: z! n8 K9 T6 [1 |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
3 Q0 ~+ a' w; m8 Gmaintenance costs, this is because they are not sole users of public roads. Railroad
1 _' _0 f7 j8 b# G, [6 E2 ecompanies shoulder the entire burden of maintenance and taxes on their own facilities
! r+ Y' u8 I! \4 Nand tracks; but they distribute these costs to other users through usage fees.
5 d4 b7 e* R) H" W      In addition, the author assumes that property taxes should be structured to provide
incentives for cost-effective and environmentally beneficial business practices. This
3 F' d/ [0 O6 `3 A5 v( massumption is questionable because property taxes are normally structured to reflect the
value of property. Moreover, the author seems to think that cost-effectiveness and
$ w6 K5 I8 i' [; U! Qenvironmental soundness are equally relevant to the question of tax relief. However,
0 ?' Z* |" T$ mthese are separate considerations. The environmental soundness of a practice might be
2 t4 Z9 Z9 v* I" x+ j0 W1 brelevant in determining tax structuring, but society does not compensate a business for
# d+ v; d7 e: X% z' |; F" Yits cost-efficiency.
, O; D. V$ _& I# X9 @+ \1 j      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-
4 a% X6 I+ q/ v3 R7 i( U4 z, S1 Yeffective; on the other hand, it might be appropriate, or socially correct, to encourage
" ~0 m$ w  i6 x  P5 M8 E2 z- Umore 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
- v5 E& q) d! G6 @! j' a$ @prudence on the other.
) h. ~: Q' Y+ W* {2 A      In sum, this argument is a confusion of weak comparisons, mixed issues and
2 S2 k& C# w1 _) k; K. ^5 Vequivocal claims. I would not accept the conclusion without first determining: (1) the
6 |$ v( k; h0 z8 |3 Zfactors relevant to tax structure, (2) whether specific tax benefits should accrue to
1 h9 C- y" _3 N  b) e; g6 ^9 vproperty as well as to income and capital gains taxes, (3) whether railway shipping  
# I1 H  a- ^9 m, {6 i. L1 ureally does provide greater social benefits, and (4) whether it is correct to motivate more
0 }( b3 `. R- ?+ orailway shipping on this basis.