Below is also the reason why I eliminated A in the first place. I understand that you have answered this question from the negate perspective.
Would you mind elaborating more on why "some people don't donate much" could be an assumption? "some people" don't donate much, BUT "most people" may still donate regardless of any revise in provision. Thus, it's very hard to convince me that it's 100% true. I know the rule for the right answer, and i'm not trying to question it. However, a similar question was in an OG problem that i recently encountered, and the explanation eliminated the "some of" answer because of the reason stated above.
It's very confusing.
duyng9989 Wrote:I have a question:
How to negate the choice A and B?
What is the opposite argument of A and B?
I did not select A because "at least some". I thought that: okay, the tax incentive makes wealthy people donate money. But without the tax incentive, some people dont donate that much (but they still donate some). Therefore, even without the tax deduction, charitable institutions still have money (not much but some) to continue their service. Therefore, I eliminated A.
What's wrong with my reasoning?
please help
Thank you
