#7 - Trade negotiator: Increasing economic prosperity in a

[Administrator]

This strengthen question has a fairly large and obvious gap in the argument. After a premise that tells us only that there is a causal link between prosperity and freedom, the conclusion introduces the opinion that it is wrong to adopt policies that would hinder prosperity in another country. To strengthen this claim, we need to provide something that at least starts to close that gap between a factual, causal claim and the opinion about what is wrong.

Answer A: This answer tells us that every country should do something to encourage prosperity, but this doesn't help to strengthen the claim that to do other things that might hinder that prosperity would be wrong. We need an answer that tells us something is wrong, not that something is right.

Answer B: This answer makes a further causal link from prosperity and freedom to overall well-being. As a purely factual answer, it cannot help to strengthen an opinion-based conclusion.

Answer C: This answer explains more about the link between prosperity and freedom, telling us that the former is the primary motive for pursuing the latter. Again, this gives us facts only and cannot be used to close the gap and get to the opinion advanced in the argument's conclusion.

Answer D: This is the correct answer. Here we have an opinion about what is wrong ("should not do"), and it makes the link to freedom that was missing in the stimulus. If we should not do something that hinders freedom, and hindering prosperity would hinder freedom, then we should not do something that hinders prosperity. Winner!

Answer E: This answer almost sounds like a restatement of the conclusion, which would of course not strengthen the conclusion. In fact, it's not a restatement, because it shifts focus from other countries to the country adopting the policies in question. It also fails to make any link to freedom. For all of these reasons, it's a loser, although an unwary test taker who missed the link provided in answer D might well fall for it because it captures some of the same ideas as the conclusion did. Be careful! A good prephrase would help avoid picking this one.

[Xiaoxxxx]

Hi, I crossed out the Answer D because I thought it was a mistaken reversal of the first sentence in the stimulus . I cannot understand how can we infer from the stimulus and get “hinder financial prosperity -->hinder political freedom.”

[Adam Tyson]

You would be right if that first claim was conditional, Xiaoxxxx, but it isn't. It's causal! "Bring" is an active claim that indicates a cause, unlike a passive claim like "when you have economic prosperity you also have political freedom." Treat that claim as causal and it is okay to infer that were the cause is diminished, the effect is also diminished. Also, the "might" in answer D makes it much softer and thus more acceptable in this scenario, because while it might be the case that reducing a cause could leave the effect intact, it still might reduce that effect. If the rule is not to do anything that might have that effect, that would help this argument out, at least a little.

[Xiaoxxxx]

You would be right if that first claim was conditional, Xiaoxxxx, but it isn't. It's causal! "Bring" is an active claim that indicates a cause, unlike a passive claim like "when you have economic prosperity you also have political freedom." Treat that claim as causal and it is okay to infer that were the cause is diminished, the effect is also diminished. Also, the "might" in answer D makes it much softer and thus more acceptable in this scenario, because while it might be the case that reducing a cause could leave the effect intact, it still might reduce that effect. If the rule is not to do anything that might have that effect, that would help this argument out, at least a little.

Thank you a lot, Adam! It is really helpful. I am going to review the difference between causal relationship and a conditional relationship.