Thanks for the question, saranash1.
The Justify Formula is a very mechanical approached used in Justify the Conclusion questions to test the effect of the answer choice on the stimulus. Your task in a Justify question is to find the choice that, once inserted into the stimulus as a premise, while show the conclusion is valid. To do so, the language of the correct choice will fit very snugly into the argument, and will often contain definitive language.
The first step in applying the Justify Formula is knowing that you are dealing with a Justify question. You can recognize a Justify question by the conditional relationship between the answer choice and the conclusion established by the question stem, i.e., the answer choice is sufficient to show the conclusion is valid.
In the case of Question 26, the relationship in the question stem is:
the correct answer is assumed
main conclusion follows logically
To prephrase which of the answer choices can play such a strong role in the stimulus, you must understand the argument:
Premise: using a car phone seriously distracts the driver
Premise: distracted driving poses a threat to safe driving
Premise: if it were illegal to use car phones while driving, people would be deterred
from doing so (Illegal
deterred)
Premise: the politician supports the bill because of a concern for public safety
Concluson: the bill that makes using car phones while driving should be adopted
The prephrase begins with the idea that the conclusion is not simply factual, but reflects the application of some principle, i.e., "should be adopted." None of the premises contained a principle. So, our prephrase is that the correct answer choice will contain a principle that tells us that bills that increase public safety, or protect the public, or even prohibit using car phones while driving, should be adopted.
You indicated confusion between choices (A) and (C). While these answers provide information that support the idea that distractions have a negative effect on driving, and that reducing distractions would improve driver safety, neither is correct. Both answers focus on distractions and driving, but neither provide the principle (i.e., a rule telling you how you should think or act in a given situation) that can lead you to the "should" language in the conclusion.
Choice (D) provides that "should" language, and is the only choice to do so. It says, "Any proposed law that would reduce a threat to public safety
should be adopted." If you insert this choice as a premise into the argument, it provides definitive support for the idea that the bill should be passed.
Hope that helps.
Ron
