#8 - Principle: If the burden of a proposed policy change

[Ron Gore]

Hi Reop,

Answer choice (B) is incorrect because it has no effect on the conclusion. There is no evidence in the stimulus that re-introducing rock salt as a de-icer will increase the cost of road maintenance. It's just as likely from the information given in the stimulus that using rock salt is a less expensive option that could reduce maintenance costs, which would not create a burden for people with lower incomes, but would instead disproportionately favor them.

Thanks,

Ron

[CPA2lawschool]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen—PR, SN. The correct answer choice is (D)

Interestingly, this is the second Strengthen—Principle question in a row. What distinguishes this question from Question 7 is that the principle is explicitly provided in the stimulus. This focuses your approach on the elements of the principle in the abstract. The most efficient approach here is to identify the elements of the principle, compare those elements to the facts in the “Application” portion of the stimulus, and identify an additional fact that would make the principle and the application scenario fit together better.

The principle is a conditional rule, that can be diagrammed as:

BFD = burden of a proposed policy change would fall disproportionately on people with low incomes
PC = policy change should not be made

• BFD PC

In the application portion of the stimulus, the author discusses Centerburgh’s plans to reintroduce rock salt as a road de-icing agent. The city stopped using rock salt several years ago because it accelerated the corrosion of automobiles. Now, according to the city, cars are better protected from salt’s corrosive properties than they were even as recently as five years ago. Despite the city’s assurance that cars are now better protected from salt, the author concludes, based on the principle diagrammed above, that the city’s plan should be halted (i.e., the policy change should not be made (PC)).

Comparing the abstract principle to the facts given in the Application, we see that the necessary condition is met. The author concludes the city should not change its policy to permit the reintroduction of rock salt as a de-icing agent. What is missing from the Application is any indication that this change in policy would disproportionately burden people with low incomes.

Do not waste time trying to prephrase precisely how the policy change would burden people with low incomes disproportionately. There are conceivably many ways in which LSAC could establish this burden. Instead, move to the answer choices on the lookout for the one choice that explains how those with low incomes would be burdened disproportionately, especially one that links to the only potential negative impact discussed by the stimulus: corrosion damage to automobiles.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice weakens the application of the principle because it states that lower-income people are less likely to drive cars. If so, they would not be burdened disproportionately by the risk of rock salt corroding their cars.

Answer choice (B): This choice has no effect on the conclusion because there is no evidence in the stimulus that re-introducing rock salt as a de-icer will increase the cost of road maintenance. It is just as likely from the information given that using rock salt is a less expensive option that could reduce maintenance costs.

Answer choice (C): This choice has no effect on the application because nothing in the city’s plan requires the town residents, low-income or otherwise, to purchase new cars.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. This choice supports the application of the principle, because if lower-income people are more likely to buy older cars, which are not as well protected from salt’s corrosive properties, then they are more likely to have a car that would be corroded by rock salt on the roads.

Answer choice (E): This choice weakens the application, because it implies that drivers with lower incomes are less likely to come into contact with rock salt, and therefore will be less likely to suffer from corrosion-related issues.

Hi team,

Thanks for posting the explanation above.

I incorrectly selected AC B and see now that we do not know enough about the relationship between the cost of the de-icing agent relative to road maintenance to determine whether this will disproportionately INCREASE the burden of people with low incomes. Clicks now.


Quick question with regard to answer choice D.

My issue is the with this answer choice is within the unsupported assumption that newer cars are better protected than older cars. The stimulus states that "..the city claims that cars are now better protected from (the salt) than compared to five years ago.." but this does not preclude older cars from being as protected as new cars are now.

Interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks!

[Brook Miscoski]

CPA2lawschool,

(D) does not depend on the unsupported assumption that new cars are protected better than old cars. In evaluating the logic, you are required to accept the premises as true, so you cannot propose that old cars are equally well protected as new cars. The stimulus explicitly states that newer cars are better protected compared to older cars "even as recently as five years ago." That means that a car that is 5 years old or more on the day of the argument is not as protected as a new car.

Thus, if people with lower incomes are more likely to purchase old cars, they are more likely to be adversely affected by resuming rock salt use.

[TheKingLives]

I also was split between B and D. I originally chose D, but switched to B because of the explicitness of the burden on people with low incomes. Would you say B is a shell game answer? It mentions road maintenance, which isn't explicitly stated in the stimulus, and I guess salting the roads isn't technically road maintenance in the sense of fixing potholes, repaving, etc., but it sort of fits it, I guess? Salting the roads due to ice and snow is maintaining the roads to best serve the community (preventing accidents, damage, etc.) Is salting the roads not road maintenance?

[Adam Tyson]

I would not say that salting was road maintenance, TheKingLives, but maybe that's because I grew up in the northeast and saw the damage that salting did to roads, eating away at them and accelerating degradation of the surface. Salting was about preventing accidents, not preventing damage to the roadways. (Well, okay, I suppose it prevented water from freezing in the cracks, which did damage the roads by expanding potholes, so it may be at least partially about preventive maintenance, but I digress).

But putting that aside, answer B has nothing to do with salting the roads or maintaining them - it is only about local sales taxes, which are not at issue in the stimulus. There is no proposal to raise those taxes, so that is not the proposal we are talking about stopping because of a disproportionate burden. Instead, look for a reason that the proposal to reintroduce salting will disproportionately burden people with low incomes, as answer D does.