#16- Policy analyst: Increasing the size of a police force

[dcsmitx3]

I got down to B and D in this question and ended up selecting B. Can someone explain why D is the correct answer? Is it because of the use of SN language similar to the stimulus? Is B wrong because of the lack of SN language?

[Adam Tyson]

It's not about conditional reasoning here, dcsmitx3, but about matching both the premises and the abstract structure of the argument, and especially about matching the flaw.

In the stimulus, the author has one premise, the first sentence. That boils down to "X doesn't deal with the cause of the problem, it just helps to deal with the effects." The conclusion is that therefore X should not be done at all.

What's the flaw here? There is no evidence - none at all - that we should not do X. So what if it is "only a stopgap"? What's wrong with stopgap measures? Could they be helpful, even if they don't solve the problem? If I had to label this flaw, I would say it is either a "some evidence" flaw (some evidence against a position is taken as proof that the position is false) or, perhaps a "general lack of relevant evidence" (the evidence presented has no bearing on the issue at hand). One way or another, it is some sort of "use of evidence" flaw.

Now to those two answers: does answer B have the same "it doesn't get to the cause of the problem, even if it might help somewhat" premise? No, because it never says anything about a "root causes" of anything. What is the big problem that dams are trying to solve? To make it worse, this answer introduces a completely new idea in the premises, that the solution has harmful effects along with its good ones. The stimulus said nothing about more police causing harm! Finally, is there a complete lack of relevant evidence here? Nope, the evidence offered - making things worse sometimes - is entirely relevant.

D is a perfect match. The premise is that the drug doesn't solve the problem, even though it has some benefits. The conclusion is that the drug should never be used. The evidence is completely irrelevant to that conclusion. Who says drugs should only be used for cures, and never for reducing harmful effects? Or, if you see this as a "some evidence" flaw, it also matches - there is a little evidence, perhaps, against using the drug (I don't think it's relevant, but some people might thing it is), and the author takes that evidence much too far and claims that the drug should therefore never be used.

Match the flaw in a Parallel Flaw question, but also match the premises and the abstract structure, among other things. I hope that helps!