#22- The relaxation of regulations governing the manufacture

[avengingangel]

Is E wrong because the stimulus does not talk about "beneficial effects" ? It only talks about how the original intent could be "undermined" ? Also, can you turn E into a conditional statement (bc of the "only")? Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Yes indeed, angel, we could diagram that answer conditionally. That would look something like this:

Deregulation has Beneficial Results Narrowly Focused

The problem with this answer is not so much the reference to beneficial results, but the use of "only". There is nothing in the stimulus to suggest that broader deregulation efforts would have no beneficial results, but only that it would have at least some detrimental ones. E is just to narrow an answer here, and too strong, to describe what role the sentence in question was playing.

The other reason that E is wrong is that D is simply a better answer. Your prephrase should have been something like "a premise that supports the conclusion in the next sentence, that deregulation could lead to fewer medicines." Remember to always prephrase, and to select the best answer, not just any answer that might work.

Keep at it!

[lsatowl]

Hi - can someone help explain why B is wrong here? The statement seems to support the claim that deregulation is bad, in other words, serving as evidence for the POV the argument is trying to undermine. I can see why D is also correct, but I'm wondering why B isn't the stronger answer? Thanks!

[Amber Thomas]

Hi Lsatowl!

Let's deconstruct the stimulus:

Premise 1: Unless strict environmental regulations are maintained, endangered plans and animals will become extinct
Premise 2: A large majority of new medicines come from plants and animals
Premise 3: Therefore, mass deregulation could undermine the goal of making medicine more widely available
Conclusion: The relaxation of regulations governing the manufacture and sale of new medicines should not entail lifting all regulations on industrial activity

If we fill in the gaps in our premises, we can infer that our author is saying: since many new medicines come from plants and animals, and deregulation could lead to the extinction of endangered species, and therefore actually make medicine less widely available, as deregulation would decrease the populations of the plants and animals used to make them.

Our question stem is asking what the purpose of introducing Premise Two.

Now, let's look at Answer Choice B: "evidence for a point of view that the argument is designed to undermine. "

Our stimulus is arguing against (therefore, trying to undermine) lifting all regulations that restrict industrial activity in the effort of making medicine more widely available. Premise Two is actually a point in support of the author's own argument/point of view, as opposed to the point of view they are trying to undermine.

I hope this helps!