#4 - The legislature is considering a proposed bill that

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (D)

This is a fairly straightforward argument regarding a proposal to prohibit fishing in Eagle Bay. As
is quite common in Logical Reasoning stimuli, this author presents an opposition viewpoint before
proceeding to his own position. The opposition viewpoint is that such a ban would have negative
economic impact, but the author argues in favor of the ban because “continuing to permit fishing
in Eagle Bay could thus have grave effects on public health.” Thus, answer choice (D) is the best
description of the evidence present by this argument.

Answer choice (A): This is a Half-Right, Half-Wrong answer. This answer confuses the author’s
viewpoint with the opposition viewpoint. Toxic contamination of fish could have grave health
effects, while the ban itself could have economic effects.

Answer choice (B): This is the only abstract answer presented and is a poor choice for this question
stem. The stimulus itself is very concrete (even to the extent of giving exact statistics and specific
place names) and the correct answer should reflect that. The testmakers know that students often
find principle questions confusing, but the reason this answer is confusing is because this is not a
principle question and the answer is wrong.

Answer choice (C): The author presents evidence in this argument about the ban itself and does
not address opponents of the ban (except to acknowledge that opposition exists). The author is
attempting to convince the reader to support the ban, rather than convince the reader that opponents
of ban failed to reason properly.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. Answer choice (D) is an appropriate
paraphrase of the author’s evidence, as it addresses the consequences of a failure to enact the ban.
This answer is consistent with the author’s conclusion that the ban should be enacted and reflects the
pattern of reasoning used to reach that conclusion.

Answer choice (E): Answer choice (E) reflects an assumption that is not supported by the evidence.
Remember, the ban is on fishing, not on pollution. While the ban might reduce the level of toxins
consumed by the residents of Eagle Bay, there is no evidence to suggest that not fishing would
reduce toxins in the fish.

[adlindsey]

I had this between B and D but went with B after choosing D, because of the strong language in D and the soft language in the conclusion.

[Adam Tyson]

Hey there adlindsey, thanks for sharing your thought process on this one. Strong language, by itself, is no reason to reject an answer, nor is it sufficient to select an answer absent more information about context. While strong language is usually suspect in Must Be True questions, for example, and is often a problem in Assumption questions, in this Method of Reasoning question it's not only acceptable but should be expected due to the certain nature of the stimulus. The conclusion was that the ban should be enacted, which is a very certain claim. Not that it would be good or that it should probably be enacted, but that it should be, full stop. The evidence is that there is a grave concern about public health, and that's also strong language with a high degree of certainty. Your prephrase here should be something like "there will be big problems if we don't".

Answer B has several problems, not the least of which is the use of "usually". Did our author present any evidence about what usually happens? Not once did that concept come up. Also, the author never brought up any moral principles, just factual evidence of a public health concern. Either of these problems should be enough to reject answer B on the first pass as a clear loser, and when you put them together it should be even easier. Don't pick a bad answer just because you aren't thrilled about another answer! Reject the losers, and whatever is left, even if you don't love it, is a contender.

Take another look and see if that makes sense, and do not be afraid of strong language when strong language is called for.

[hrhyoo]

Hi Powerscore,

I was also torn between B and D and eventually selected D only because D matches with the specifics of the stimulus better. But I still had to work hard to reject D even during the review because I thought the moral principle was in this case putting public health before corporate profits and the forseeable effect being people getting sick. Did I assume too much here?

Thanks in advance,


Hanna

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Hanna,

A couple general observations that could help with your elimination process on answer choice B. The question stem wants you to identify the evidence that the argument has presented. What is that evidence? The pollution level of the bay, and the recent toxin study of the fish in the bay. It's true the author then evaluates that evidence through the lens of what is arguably a moral principle (something like, "keep an eye on the negative effects of the practices you engage in"). But the evidence presented isn't evidence of such a principle. And even if it were, it would only be evidence applicable to this one specific situation, so we wouldn't have any evidence that such a principle is "usually" (i.e. in most circumstances, beyond just this one) correct. That's plenty to go on to eliminate answer choice B.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[hrhyoo]

Thanks Jeremy!

Now I see more clearly that the question stem does ask to ID evidence presented in the stimulus. So, even if the author may have assumed and applied the moral principle of valuing public health over corporate profits in her argument, it is not explicitly presented in the stimulus hence making B incorrect.

Hope I am on the right track.

Thanks again,


Hanna

[emilyjmyer]

Hi!

I see that there already was a question addressing the wrong language of answer choice D but I have a further question with it. I was between A and D, but I eliminated D because it used the word "would," while the stimulus said "COULD thus have grave effects on public health." I thought that would had a higher degrees of certainty by saying that the negative health effects will happen, while could means that the negative health effects are just an option.

I went with A because I thought that the stimulus was saying that toxins lead to a need for stopping local fishing which leads to harming the economy. I thought the author was acknowledging that the economy may be hurt, but that it is still not good enough of a reason to continue the local fishing. Without the toxic contamination, there would be no need to stop the local fishing.

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

The author doesn't connect the toxins to the economy, emilyjmyer, but only to public health. That's why answer A is incorrect - it misstates the position presented by the author.

You're right that "would" is stronger than "could," but answer D is not saying that the toxins would definitely impact public health. Rather, they are saying that the toxins would carry the risk of impacting public health. In other words, continuing to allow fishing would definitely be risky, and that means the same thing as "could thus have grave effects on public health."

[Mo28_28]

Hi
I have a question about E. Could you explain that the word welfare refers to which concept in the argument?
Is health some kind of welfare?
Thanks

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Mo28_28!

I assume that your question is about answer choice (D), which mentions "welfare," rather than (E), which doesn't mention it. To your question, yes, the stimulus talks about "grave effects on public health" that would follow from allowing fishing to continue in Eagle Bay, effects which present "risks for the public welfare."