#23 - The constitution of Country F requires that whenever

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Principle, Cannot Be True. The correct answer choice is (E).

In the stimulus we are given certain rules set forth by the Constitution of Country F. Those rules can be diagrammed conditionally, as follows:

Gov Sells State Owned Entity Highest Price & Citizens Have Majority Ownership for At Least One Year

We are asked to select the answer that will require a violation of those rules. This is a form of Cannot Be True question, and the most common form of Cannot Be True is where we are given a conditional claim and we are to select an answer where the Sufficient Condition occurs and the Necessary Condition does not. So we must look for a situation where the government will definitely sell a state-owned entity but must either accept a price less than the highest one they could have gotten on the open market OR they will be unable to guarantee that the citizens have majority ownership for at least one year after the sale. Pay close attention - we are not looking for a situation where the government MIGHT violate the rules, but one where they MUST violate them.

Answer choice (A): There is no indication here that the government must sell to the corporation in question, nor is there any indication that if they do they will fail to meet the necessary conditions. Noncitizens having a minority share is not a problem.

Answer choice (B): Again, there is no indication that the rule will be broken in this case, as the location of the corporation's operations is not an element of the rules.

Answer choice (C): Nothing in this answer suggests that the government must sell to World Oil. It is possible that that there is a higher bidder, and that the highest bid will come from a company that the government can guarantee will be majority owned by the citizens.

Answer choice (D): Like answer A, noncitizens owning a minority share is irrelevant to our argument, so long as the government can guarantee majority ownership by citizens. There is no reason here to conclude that the rule must be broken.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Here we have a situation where the Necessary Conditions become mutually exclusive, and thus cannot both be met. If the government insists on the restrictions to guarantee citizens will own the majority of the company, they will not get the highest price they could have gotten on the open market, but if they demand the highest price then they cannot guarantee the majority ownership to the citizens. One way or another, the rule must be violated in this instance.

[c-erv]

Hello,

For this question I was able to narrow the answer choices down to C and E. However, I am having a hard time eliminating answer choice C.

I read the stimulus as follows:

Sell state-owned entity Highest Price AND Citizens majority at least 1 year after transaction

Clearly E violates the situation above since such restrictions lead to price reductions.

However, I C reads; "the government cannot determine whether citizens of Country F have majority ownership" - Since there can't be a determination made, won't this answer choice also violate the conditional reasoning above? I understand that under this answer choice there is still a possibility that the the citizens will have a majority ownership. However there is also still a possibility that the citizens will not hold the majority.
I'm just having a hard time how the uncertainty wouldn't constitute a violation

Thanks!

[Jonathan Evans]

Hey, C-Erv,

Well, you answered your own question!

Consider the question stem:

"The government of Country F must violate at least one of the constitutional requirements described above if it is faced with which one of the following situations?"

I've highlighted "must" because that's the key word. We're looking for what must contradict the principle outlined above. In answer choice C, the principle might be violated or it might not. We can't prove anything here.

Hats off to you! You did the work here.

[c-erv]

Thanks for the response! Once I take the "must" into consideration, it makes perfect sense.

[sherpower]

Hi, a quick question on this:

Doesn't C violate the constitution as well, as the government will not be able to "ensure that Citizens of Country F will have the majority ownership," when the ownership structure is "so complex that the government cannot determine whether citizens of Country F have majority ownership.” The constitution does not require that the citizens actually have majority ownership, but it requires that the government ensures that they do. So even if the citizens don’t end up having majority ownership, but the government ensured that they did, the constitution is not in violation. Similarly, when the corporate structure is such that prevents the government from ensuring that, they are in a de facto violation of the constitution, regardless the outcome of ownership distribution.

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Sher,

As Jonathan explained above, choice (C) could result in a violation of the constitution of this country. However we are looking for a situation where the government of this country must violate the constitution.

Even if the government is currently unsure if citizens have a majority ownership of World Oil Company, there is nothing in answer choice (C) preventing the government from making this happen - for example, by mandating that the company sell some of its stock domestically. This seems difficult, but there are ways around the problem of World Oil Company.

Answer Choice (E) however presents a real paradox: the only way to get citizen majority ownership would also lower the open market price.

We can also look at Choice (C) from a different angle. Even if World Oil Company made one of the highest offers, the government may still be able to sell if to a domestic company for more.

[JaredBeats]

I feel like this is a temporal fallacy. The government can't make the requisite determination *right now*, but the principle requires that they do so *in the future*. So, the principle isn't violated (yet).

[sherpower]

Thanks Francis

[Jonathan Evans]

Hey Jared,

Interesting question. Note that the question stem indicates that the country must violate one of these requirements if it is faced with one of the following situations.

This means that even though the answer choices describe future events, for the purposes of our consideration, we must consider what would happen should these events occur: the occurrence of which event will precipitate a coincident constitutional violation?

In fact, to be a grammar nerd about it, the correct way to consider each statement in the answer choices with respect to the question stem is to convert the answer choices into the present tense. This is mandatory in an "if...then" construction. Consider the following example: "If I get a good grade on my exam next week, then I'll celebrate with my friends."

"Getting a good grade" occurs in the future, but it would be incorrect (according to conventional usage) to state "If I will get a good grade on my exam next week..."

It's the same circumstance here. Take the scenario in an answer choice—"The government will sell National Telephone"—and then apply it to the scenario in the question stem: "The government must violate a principle if it is faced with which of the following situations?"

The if-clause in the question stem requires that the verb be in the present tense even if the scenario described occurs in the future. Thus, there is no temporal fallacy.

I hope this helps!

[mN2mmvf]

Hey, C-Erv,

Well, you answered your own question!

Consider the question stem:

"The government of Country F must violate at least one of the constitutional requirements described above if it is faced with which one of the following situations?"

I've highlighted "must" because that's the key word. We're looking for what must contradict the principle outlined above. In answer choice C, the principle might be violated or it might not. We can't prove anything here.

Hats off to you! You did the work here.

I don't understand how in (C) the principle "might be violated or it might not." If the government "cannot determine whether citizens of Country F have majority ownership," then there is no way for the government to "*ensure* that the citizens of Country F will have majority ownership." Ensuring something requires the country to actively be certain that majority ownership exists, and they are unable to do that. Thus, it must violate that principle.

(E) does not require the country to violate either principle. Citizens will gain a majority, and reducing the price does not mean that the reduced-price is not still the "highest price it can command on the open market." If there are no higher bids (and we have no knowledge that there are), then it is still the highest price, and the principle is not violated.