MCQ Practice Writing 4

The writer wants to add a sentence after sentence 1 to provide factual support for the claim and focus the audience on the foundation of the argument. Which of the following sentences best accomplishes this purpose?

• • Daniel J. Mitchel at the CATO Institute argues that the government doesn’t spend as much on welfare as it appears but only because a good chunk of it is lost to fraud and misspending.

• • The IRS reports that income tax avoidance plots are nothing but “schemes [that] have evolved into sophisticated arrangements to give the appearance that taxpayers are not in control of their money.”

• • The Senate budget office reports that welfare programs cost more than $1 trillion yearly.

• • The Urban Institute has reported that each year, the government spends nearly as much on public education as on unemployment and other welfare programs.

• • According to the Heritage Foundation, for the average household, income taxes amount to giving the government $20,000 every year, on which they see little return.

The writer is considering adding the following sentence before sentence 4.

Many people would define income tax as money taken by the government only to support working people and businesses by keeping roads safe and securing other things that help commerce.

Should the writer make this addition?

• • Yes, because the sentence explains something with which many readers will likely be unfamiliar.

• • Yes, because in defining income taxes, it also creates a lead-in to the argument of the passage by stating what many believe income taxes are used for.

• • No, because the writer should assume the readers’ knowledge and not appear patronizing to them.

• • No, because the sentence makes a generalization that is impossible to prove without government statistics or independent survey data.

• • No, because it assumes too much regarding working people and businesses in the United States.

The writer is considering revising the underlined portion of sentence 4 (reproduced below) to better appeal to the intended audience’s emotions and values.

Once income taxes were constitutional law, the government immediately began spending working citizens’ tax dollars on programs that rewarded those who wouldn’t work, and to this day, too many people are allowed to draw money from the government without working.

Which of the following would be the best revision of the underlined portion?

• • (as it is now)

• • using working citizens’ tax dollars on

• • allocating working citizens’ tax dollars for

• • wasting working citizens’ tax dollars on

• • reserving working citizens’ tax dollars on

Which version of sentence 5 (reproduced below) provides the most effective thesis statement for the passage?

Supporting those who cannot work undermines the values on which America was founded and on which it grew to such prominence.

• • (As it is now)

• • Using the wages of working citizens to support those who refuse to work undermines the values on which America was founded and on which it grew to such prominence.

• • Taking from tax dollars to support those who cannot work undermines the initial reasons for income taxes.

• • Tax dollars are meant only to protect those who pay taxes.

• • Contrary to popular belief, relying on tax dollars to support immigrants, whether they work or not, ignores the initial reasons for collecting those taxes.

The writer is considering deleting the underlined portion of sentence 9 (reproduced below), adjusting punctuation as needed to better maintain the line of reasoning.

This argument is not meant as an indictment of immigrant labor: immigrants work hard at jobs many Americans won’t do.

Should the writer delete this underlined portion?

• • Yes, immigrants are not a part of the argument.

• • Yes, this draws too much attention to an unessential part of the argument and detracts from the line of reasoning.

• • No, immigrant labor is a different kind of labor that should not be considered here.

• • No, this helps to strengthen the contrast between those who will work and those who won’t in this argument.

• • No, this helps create a more cohesive connection with the previous paragraph.

The writer is considering deleting sentence 11 (reproduced below).

Using taxes paid by working people to support people who won’t work is an insult to those workers.

Should the writer delete this sentence?

• • Yes, because it will bring sentences 10 and 12 closer together to emphasize the conclusive call for a change in the system that supports people who don’t work with the taxes of those who do.

• • Yes, because it develops an argument about immigrants that diverges from the central line of reasoning.

• • Yes, because the comment about insulting those who do work does not match the tone of the rest of the passage.

• • No, because it reiterates the dependent relationship between immigrant labor and Americans who will not work.

• • No, because it connects the idea of the “failures of a system” in sentence 10 with the needed change in the system in sentence 12 to bring the passage to a conclusion and call the reader to act accordingly.