#24 - Legal commentator: The goal of a recently enacted law

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

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

The legal commentator provides a fairly straightforward discussion of a recently enacted workplace
smoking ban, intended to protect employees from secondhand smoke. “But,” the commentator says,
the law could never be interpreted to prohibit people from smoking in their homes. The implication
is that this follow-up point modifies (or perhaps contradicts) the author’s first point in some way.
Regardless, there is no conclusion present, just a fact set, meaning that you are likely looking at a
Must Be True, Cannot Be True, or Resolve the Paradox question.

The question stem which follows asks for the claim that can be rejected based on the information
from the stimulus. In other words, we must find the answer choice that cannot be true based on the
commentator’s statements.

Answer choice (A): This choice provides that the law will be interpreted in a way that is inconsistent
with the intent of the law’s supporters. Since from the legal commentator’s statements there is no
way to ensure that the new law will always be interpreted in a manner consistent with the intentions
of the supporting lawmakers, this choice cannot be rejected based on the information in the stimulus.
Thus, it cannot be the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice provides that the new legislation’s supporters believe the
law will significantly impact the health of many workers. Since there is no way to refute this claim,
which deals with the beliefs of the supporters, based on any of the information provided by the
political commentator, this choice can be confidently ruled out.

Answer choice (C): The commentator specifically points out that the law could never be interpreted
to prohibit smoking inside the home. This choice, which provides that the new law would never
extend beyond people’s workplaces, is not inconsistent with the commentator’s argument, so this
choice cannot be the correct answer to this Cannot Be True question stem.

Answer choice (D): The legal commentator’s second point is that the new law could not be
interpreted to prohibit people from smoking inside their homes. This answer choice provides
that most people believe in a fundamental right to smoke inside one’s home. Since there is
no inconsistency between these two ideas, this choice cannot be rejected based on the legal
commentator’s claims.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice, and one which explains why the author
chose to use the word “but” in the stimulus. Although the recently enacted law was intended
to protect workers from the dangers of secondhand smoke, the law has limited reach—it could
not be interpreted to prohibit smoking inside the home, meaning that domestic workers such as
housecleaners would not be protected by the new law. Since this is the only choice that can be
rejected based on the information provided in the stimulus, it is the correct answer choice.

As a final point, notice how Cannot Be True questions are often more challenging than average, not
because the stimulus is difficult to understand, but because the process of finding an answer choice
that can be rejected is rather unusual. If this question was one you found to be difficult, make sure
to study this question type closely and become comfortable with the process of finding the answer
choice that does not follow from the statements in the stimulus.

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello,

I was confused on what type of question this was. " the statements above, if true, provide a basis for rejecting which one of the following claims? So its not a MBT question correct ?.


Can someone explain this question. So the correct answer choice is one that is false correct? I chose C b/c I thought we were concerned with employees. Why would it be relevant to know whether the law protects people outside of their workplaces.

Thankyou
Sarah

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Sarah,

This is a Cannot Be True question: we are asked to identify a claim that can be rejected based on the information from the stimulus. In other words, we must find the answer choice that cannot be true based on the commentator’s statements.

The commentator provides a fairly straightforward discussion of a recently enacted workplace smoking ban, which was intended to protect employees from secondhand smoke. “But,” the commentator says, the law could never be interpreted to prohibit people from smoking in their homes. Alright, was it meant to? The law was only mean to protect employees from secondhand smoke, not grandma.

Personally, I was confused by this rejoinder ("but..."). Turns out, my confusion that was quite helpful in identifying the correct answer choice (E): it's the only answer that explains why the author chose to use the word “but” in the stimulus. Although the recently enacted law was intended to protect workers from the dangers of secondhand smoke, the law has limited reach—it could not be interpreted to prohibit smoking inside the home, meaning that domestic workers such as housecleaners would not be protected by the new law. Answer choice (E), meanwhile, states that such workers would be protected—this is simply not true. Since this is the only choice that cannot be true based on the information provided in the stimulus, it is the correct answer choice.

As a final point, notice how Cannot Be True questions are often more challenging than average, not because the stimulus is difficult to understand, but because the process of finding an answer choice that can be rejected is rather unusual. If this question was one you found to be difficult, make sure to study this question type closely and become comfortable with the process of finding an answer choice that does NOT follow from the statements in the stimulus. Let's analyze the remaining answer choices:

Answer choice (A): This choice provides that the law will be interpreted in a way that is inconsistent with the intent of the law’s supporters. Since from the legal commentator’s statements there is no way to ensure that the new law will always be interpreted in a manner consistent with the intentions of the supporting lawmakers, this choice cannot be rejected based on the information in the stimulus. In other words, it could be true that the law is interpreted in such a way.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice provides that the new legislation’s supporters believe the law will significantly impact the health of many workers. There is no way to refute this claim, because the beliefs of the supporters are unknown.

Answer choice (C): The commentator specifically points out that the law could never be interpreted to prohibit smoking inside the home. So, is it possible that the new law would never extend beyond people’s workplaces? Sure! This is not inconsistent with the commentator’s argument, so this choice cannot be the correct answer to a Cannot Be True stem.

Answer choice (D): The legal commentator’s second point is that the new law could not be interpreted to prohibit people from smoking inside their homes. This answer choice provides that most people believe in a fundamental right to smoke inside one’s home. Since there is no inconsistency between these two ideas, this choice cannot be rejected based on the legal commentator’s claims.

Hope this clears it up!

Thanks,

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello Nikki,

Thankyou for clearing this question up, I see why E is the correct answer here, I guess since this question type is the opposite of Must be true questions, the method to find the right answer would be switched. E is basically saying that domestic workers would be protected from second hand smoke because they work inside the home....but that is not supported by the stimulus. I guess in the real world that wouldn't make sense either, you cant stop anyone from smoking inside their own home.

Thankyou
Sarah