- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Wed Apr 13, 2016 5:29 pm
#23007
Complete Question Explanation
StrengthenX-PR. The correct answer choice is (C)
The stimulus presents the information that rescues of over 250 mountain climbers cost the government almost 3 million dollars in one year, and the sport is growing. The stimulus then reports that members of a task force suggest a bonding arrangement to help pay for the costs of rescues when they occur.
The argument seems to operate on the principle that people ought not to have costs they incur covered, through the government, by others. The argument is unconvincing, because it ignores the possibility that far more than the 250 injured climbers participate in associated tourism that generates employment and taxes in many industries. However, you are simply asked to eliminate four choices that support the proposal, and select the unhelpful or weakening response. Sometimes an argument will be fairly horrible, but you will not have the opportunity to criticize it.
Answer choice (A): If taxpayers should not subsidize a hobby of individuals, the argument is more believable, even if the argument is still vulnerable to attack, so this choice supports the argument and is thus incorrect.
Answer choice (B): Since 25 people have died, and presumably requiring climbers to engage in the additional expense of buying bonds would reduce the number of climbers, the bonds could be considered a measure that discourages people from risking their lives. If the government is obliged to take such actions, that means that the bonds might fulfill the government's obligation, improving the argument that the government should require the bonds.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. This response focuses on whether certain people should have to obtain certain permits, but the stimulus focused on the idea that certain people should have to pay their own costs. Since it is not clear that permits are a means of paying injury costs, this choice is irrelevant to the argument, which in the case of an EXCEPT question makes this choice an ideal response.
Answer choice (D): If citizens who use rescue services should pay more for them than those who do not use the services, then it is more likely that the government should require the bonds, because the bonds improve the chance that those who use the rescue service are those who pay more for it. This choice supports the argument.
Answer choice (E): The mountain climbers are arguably engaged in a risky behavior inessential to anyone's welfare, so this principle would require them to pay for their own injuries. That supports the idea that the government should require the bonds, since the bonds would be a means of the climbers paying their own costs.
StrengthenX-PR. The correct answer choice is (C)
The stimulus presents the information that rescues of over 250 mountain climbers cost the government almost 3 million dollars in one year, and the sport is growing. The stimulus then reports that members of a task force suggest a bonding arrangement to help pay for the costs of rescues when they occur.
The argument seems to operate on the principle that people ought not to have costs they incur covered, through the government, by others. The argument is unconvincing, because it ignores the possibility that far more than the 250 injured climbers participate in associated tourism that generates employment and taxes in many industries. However, you are simply asked to eliminate four choices that support the proposal, and select the unhelpful or weakening response. Sometimes an argument will be fairly horrible, but you will not have the opportunity to criticize it.
Answer choice (A): If taxpayers should not subsidize a hobby of individuals, the argument is more believable, even if the argument is still vulnerable to attack, so this choice supports the argument and is thus incorrect.
Answer choice (B): Since 25 people have died, and presumably requiring climbers to engage in the additional expense of buying bonds would reduce the number of climbers, the bonds could be considered a measure that discourages people from risking their lives. If the government is obliged to take such actions, that means that the bonds might fulfill the government's obligation, improving the argument that the government should require the bonds.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. This response focuses on whether certain people should have to obtain certain permits, but the stimulus focused on the idea that certain people should have to pay their own costs. Since it is not clear that permits are a means of paying injury costs, this choice is irrelevant to the argument, which in the case of an EXCEPT question makes this choice an ideal response.
Answer choice (D): If citizens who use rescue services should pay more for them than those who do not use the services, then it is more likely that the government should require the bonds, because the bonds improve the chance that those who use the rescue service are those who pay more for it. This choice supports the argument.
Answer choice (E): The mountain climbers are arguably engaged in a risky behavior inessential to anyone's welfare, so this principle would require them to pay for their own injuries. That supports the idea that the government should require the bonds, since the bonds would be a means of the climbers paying their own costs.
