#11 - Current legislation that requires designated sections

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Justify the Conclusion—PR. The correct answer choice is (C)

The conclusion of this Stimulus is stated in the first sentence: current legislation requiring designated smoking and non-smoking sections on the premises of privately owned businesses is an unjustifiable intrusion into the private sector. The remainder of the Stimulus is simply a premise for that conclusion.

The Question Stem indicates that this is a Justify-Principle question type. In Justify questions, one seeks to add something to the Stimulus in order to arrive at the stated conclusion. In the Principle sub-category of Justify questions, the added Answer Choice will be a principle which will be broader than the specific situation presented in the Stimulus.

Answer Choice (A): This answer does not supply a necessary principle to reach the conclusion that the legislation is an unjustifiable intrusion into the private sector. In this case, the conclusion states that the legislation is an unwarranted intrusion into the private sector even though some individuals might be harmed. Answer Choice (A) states that the intrusion is justified when individuals might be harmed. Answer Choice (A) should be eliminated.

Answer Choice (B: This answer states that the right to breathe safe air supersedes the right of business to be free of government intrusion. This is the opposite of what the conclusion states in the Stimulus, and thus, is an incorrect Answer Choice. Answer Choice (B) should be eliminated.

Answer Choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. It states that the right of businesses to self-determination overrides whatever right or duty the government to protect the individual. There are two competing interests here: the right of businesses to self-determination and the duty of the government to protect people. This answer choice states that the right of businesses to be free from government intrusion is more important than the duty of the government to protect individuals.

Answer Choice (D): This answer states that it is the duty of private businesses to protect employees from harm in the workplace. While this might be true, it is not necessary to establish the conclusion contained in the Stimulus that the right of businesses to be free from governmental intrusion supersedes the duty of government to protect people. Answer Choice (D) should be eliminated.

Answer Choice (E): This answer is incorrect and should be eliminated. Compromise is not the issue here; in fact, the conclusion holds that the right for business self-determination will prevail against the duty of government. There is no compromise in the Stimulus; therefore any Answer Choice that advocates compromise should be rejected.

[Jude.m.stone@gmail.com]

Hello, I'm really struggling to break down stimuli into parts that can be put into the Justify formula. I got this question right through elimination, but if the wrong answers had been more attractive, I don't know that I would've gotten it right.

Here was my approach. The premises are essentially:
1) Government requirements around smoking sections intrude into the private sector and can't be justified.
2) The health risks aren't the main issue.
3) Government overreach into private businesses' ability to create their own policies is the main issue.

So based on that, my prephrase involved connecting the idea that [Government overreach into private businesses' ability to create their own policies] = [Government requirements around smoking sections intrude into the private sector that can't be justified] (i.e. it's specifically the issue of determining policies that qualifies this type of govt overreach as unjustifiable). I thought the health piece was just fluff meant to distract since they said that wasn't the main issue. Can you please help me understand this problem/concept better? Thanks for your time!

[Jude.m.stone@gmail.com]

Sorry, I mistyped my prephrase above. This is what I meant:

Connecting the idea that [Government overreach into private businesses' ability to create their own policies] = [Government intrusion into the private sector that can't be justified] (i.e. it's specifically the issue of determining policies that qualifies this type of govt overreach as unjustifiable).

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Jude,

So the first thing that I noticed in your question is that you listed all three sentences from the stimulus as premises.

The stimulus contains an argument and by definition an argument has to have at least one conclusion.

Here, the first sentence of the stimulus is the conclusion of this argument. It can be tricky to spot because the test-makers didn't use any conclusion indicator words like "thus, therefore," etc. and they placed it at the beginning of the argument, which is not where most people expect to find the conclusion.

In this case, you have to use the context and the logic of the argument to realize that the first sentence is what the argument is trying to prove. It is critical to identify this because what we need to do in this justify question is find an answer that will "get us" to the conclusion.

So I've rearranged your paraphrases of the sentences to:

Premise 1: The health risks aren't the main issue.
Premise 2: Government overreach into private businesses' ability to create their own policies is the main issue.

Conclusion: Government requirements around smoking sections intrude into the private sector and can't be justified.

Now at this point, we haven't proven our conclusion.

Even if it's true that the main issue is the government overreach into private businesses, that doesn't prove that the requirements about smoking can't be justified. After all, one could argue that people's health and safety are more important than a private business's right to determine its own policies.

What we need is an answer that definitely tells us that the right of private businesses to set their own policies is always more important than (and should therefore take precedence over) the government's duty of protecting people's safety.

Answer C does exactly this, and if you add Answer C to the argument right before the conclusion, it justifies the argument and let's us prove the conclusion.

[Jude.m.stone@gmail.com]

Thanks for your reply, Jeff! That makes sense -- revisiting this after listening to the PowerScore podcast on Justify questions also helped highlight that extra fluff is okay for Justify answers; I think I was approaching this problem as though it was an Assumption question in a way before. And yes, I see now that the first line is the conclusion -- thanks again!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Great work Jude. For Justify questions, we are always asking if the answer choice is enough to bridge the gap between the premises and the conclusion. You can't bridge a gap too much. It will either reach the conclusion or not. It can be much stronger than needed, but not even a smidge too weak.

Great work!