Passage Summary: A politician argues that because a 100% tax rate stops all work and generates no money, lowering taxes must always increase revenue. An economist points out that this logic implies a 0% tax rate would make the most money, which makes no sense.

Conclusion: The politician's claim that lower tax rates always result in higher government revenue is logically unsound.

Reasoning: If the principle that lower taxes always increase revenue were true, then a tax rate of zero percent would necessarily produce the highest possible revenue, which is a logical impossibility.

Analysis: The economist employs a classic 'reductio ad absurdum' strategy to dismantle the politician's argument. By taking the politician's premise to its logical extreme—a 0% tax rate—the economist demonstrates that the underlying principle leads to a ridiculous conclusion. When identifying the strategy, look for an answer choice that describes showing how a general claim is undermined by its own logical consequences. It is a very effective way to win an argument by showing the opponent's 'rule' doesn't work in every case.