- Mon Jan 23, 2023 2:11 pm
#99005
Hi Kat,
The argument can be summarized as:
Premise: Due to the limited hours that public libraries are open, most taxpayers and their families have few opportunities to use them.
Conclusion: No new taxes supporting the libraries should be approved unless the hours are changed to be more suitable to the taxpayers and their families.
This question is a strengthen principle question. We're looking for an answer than bridges the gap between the premise and the conclusion. Notice that the conclusion brings in "new" information, the idea of not approving new taxes, so our answer will almost certainly address this by tying the new information back to the premise.
Also, because this is a "principle" question, the answer will be a "principle," basically a rule that states what one should or shouldn't do in a given situation, or what is right or wrong in a given situation, etc.. Principles can be very broad in nature, so our answer doesn't have to specifically mention public libraries as long as the situation in the stimulus would fall within the broader principle.
As for the conclusion, it is conditional and it is critical to get the "diagram" (or at least the meaning if you don't diagram it) correct.
Using our Unless Equation, the diagram would be:
NTSLA -> LHCBSTF (where NTSLA means "new taxes supporting the library should be approved" and LHCBSTF means "library hours are changed to better suit taxpayers and their families."
(Note - I'm using more letters for the terms in my diagram than I usually would so that they can be easily matched up with the words in the stimulus.)
So the conclusion is stating that "if new taxes supporting the library should be approved, then the library hours have been changed to better suit taxpayers and their families."
Taking the contrapositive, we get "if the library hours have NOT been changed to better suit taxpayers and their families, then new taxes supporting the library should NOT be approved."
This would be diagrammed,
Not LHCBSTF -> Not NTSLA
(Note, we would normally show the terms with slashes through them to represent the "nots", but I can't show this in the forum.)
For our purposes, the contrapositive form is the more useful here. Notice that we can never determine from this argument when taxes should be approved, only when taxes should not be approved.
Answer A doesn't mention approving new taxes at all and doesn't get us any closer to our conclusion.
Answer B is a Mistaken Negation of what we are looking for. Answer B is stating that if more convenient for taxpayers, then taxes should be approved, but we want an answer that says "if NOT more convenient for taxpayers, then NOT approved."
Answer C is somewhat similar to Answer B in that it is describing taxpayers who do have plenty of opportunity to use the facility, while the stimulus is describing the opposite. Also, this just states that these taxpayers should have to pay taxes, not that new taxes should or shouldn't be approved.
Answer D also doesn't mention approving new taxes at all.
Answer E is conditional and perfectly bridges the gap from our premise to our conclusion. The words "only when" are necessary indicators just like the words "only if," so this answer is basically saying "if a new tax supporting a public facility should be approved, then most taxpayers have ample opportunities to use that facility."
Taking the contrapositive, Answer E states "if most taxpayers DO NOT have ample opportunities to use that facility, then a new tax supporting that public facility should NOT be approved."
Given that public libraries fall within the broader category of public facilities and that most taxpayers do not currently have ample opportunities to use those public libraries due to the restricted hours, then the taxes for the libraries should not be approved unless the hours are changed to be more convenient.
