Complete Question Explanation
Strengthen (Principle). The correct answer choice is (A)
This question presents a couple possible traps for students. First, there are few "indicator" words to help find the conclusion in the middle of the stimulus. To help identify the claim accurately and quickly, it is helpful to recognize the "statement-disagreement-evidence" pattern in the stimulus. You may be familiar with this scenario in the form of the "Some experts claim eating lasagna is part of a balanced breakfast; They must be on drugs" style argument. Once we identify the conclusion that "such legislation should not be commended" (note also that this expresses an opinion), we must then be clear about what "such legislation" refers to. It is clear in the stimulus that the legislation involves giving tax credits to encourage urban renewal in certain areas.
Now that we have a clear idea what the conclusion is, we must identify the evidence provided to support this claim. The stimulus gives us two premises:
- P1: The primary beneficiaries of this policy have been affluent investors.
P2: The legislation was intended to help the long-term residents of these areas.
In your analysis, you should now pause to try to discern an idea why the author of this stimulus considers this policy a failure. You may note that the author seems to make a connection between the idea of whether a policy is praiseworthy with whether it achieved its goal.
Now with respect to the question, we are tasked with
helping the argument by proposing a principle or rule that would bolster the author's conclusion. With your analysis in mind, you might prephrase that you are looking for an answer that makes the same connection as the author makes. In other words, you need an answer that suggests a connection between whether a policy achieves its intended goals and whether it is worthy of praise.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. One difficulty students may have with this answer stems from the phrase "evaluation of legislation." This idea correlates to the part of the conclusion about whether legislation "should not be commended," but students may miss this match. It is helpful to understand that an evaluation will ultimately result in a positive, neutral, or, as in this case, negative result. The second part of this answer choice makes a distinction between actual results and intentions, and this distinction describes criteria that comprise both our premises. Indeed, we have a choice here that could serve as a rule: based on the premises, we would be more likely to reach the author's conclusion. Thus, this is the correct answer.
Answer choice (B): Expressing a negative opinion about the role of wealthy community members, this choice may mislead students who assume the author also has a negative opinion about the role of wealthy community members. There are a couple problems here. First, we are unaware of any issues in the stimulus arising from the "influence" of these people. Second, in the stimulus there is no judgment about praiseworthiness of policies that benefit the affluent, only that this particular policy reached an outcome other than its intended goal. The outcome itself is not significant. Rather the fact that the outcome was not intended is the issue.
Answer choice (C): This choice makes no distinction between the outcome and the intention of the policy. Further, even should we assume this choice to be true, we would not necessarily reach the same conclusion. Perhaps the law did apply equally to everyone (we have no reason to believe otherwise). Even if this had been the case, the affluent may have ended up benefiting more from the policy.
Answer choice (D): Well, in fact, the legislation was to some people's benefit, just not the intended beneficiaries! This choice describes a principle that fails to apply whatsoever to the stimulus. That's not what happened here.
Answer choice (E): If anything, this choice weakens the claim by suggesting that laws that benefit the affluent can benefit everyone. If this were the case, then we would seem to have at least one possible reason why the legislation actually
should be commended, albeit rather inconclusive.
