Q16 - Environment minister: Many countries have signed an

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Principle Support

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Our country should not sign the agreement.
Evidence: Signing the agreement would probably reduce economic growth in our country and others (although the agreement probably would significantly reduce ocean pollution)

Answer Anticipation:
Prephrasing a correct answer for Principle Support usually just takes the form of saying "IF premise, THEN conclusion", or otherwise something like "we should base our decision on what the author was talking about in the premise".

Here my prediction would be "IF something would probably reduce our economic growth and that of others, THEN we shouldn't do it." Any answer choice that doesn't help me to prove we "SHOULD NOT" do something is useless.

We could also potentially see a correct answer say "avoiding a reduction in economic growth is more important than reducing pollution in the oceans" as a way of showing which of our competing concerns SHOULD take precedence.

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This says "IF unlikely to achieve stated goal, shouldn't sign". The right side matches our conclusion, but the left side doesn't match our premise. This agreement IS likely to achieve its stated goal of reducing ocean pollution.

(B) Possibly! And ultimately, yes. Given that this agreement would do one good thing and one bad thing, deciding whether to sign is largely a function of "do we care more about the good thing or the bad thing"? This answer tells us that we care more about the bad thing, and that pushes us towards the idea that we shouldn't sign.

(C) This says "IF a better meansof [reducing ocean pollution] is likely possible, shouldn't sign". The right side matches the conclusion, but the left side doesn't match the premise. We have no idea whether a better means of reducing ocean pollution is likely possible.

(D) This relates to the topic at hand, but it doesn't give us a definitive push in the direction of sign vs. don't sign. It only takes us as far as "we should consider the economic effects". Okay, we considered them. Now what?

(E) This is our one quick elimination, because it gives a rule that says "IF _____ , then should sign". We only have use for rules that say "IF ____ , then shouldn't sign."

Takeaway/Pattern: This type of correct answer isn't as compelling as the ones we usually get in Principle Support, the type that are conditional rules that say "IF premise, THEN conclusion". The other type of correct answer, which (B) represents, is more of a Rule of Thumb that tells us how we should make a decision.

#officialexplanation

[LawrenceR550]

This feels like a Sufficient Assumption question disguised as a Principle Support question. Initially I had (B) but then switched to (D). Thought to myself, "Wait, isn't (B) actually negatable?", when what I should have asked myself was "Does (B) lead me to arrive at the recommendation?"

It's frustrating because I always try to be on the lookout for nuances in wording, and the wording in (B) is very brute. Typically for principle questions, I'm looking for a more generalized, abstract statement, but that philosophy fails here. In the stimulus, it says that the agreement would "probably reduce economic growth in our country and others." The country's government could be basing its decision purely on not reducing the economic growth in those other countries. Maybe this country prioritizes eco-friendliness over its own economy, and would actually love to sign the agreement in the name of significant pollution reduction, BUT, being that the bordering 5 countries are on the verge of economic collapse, it wants to avoid war. Well, I asked myself the wrong question.

Last thing, you said that (D) "relates to the topic at hand, but it doesn't give us a definitive push in the direction of sign vs. don't sign," and I completely understand your point. But the fact that the country's government is choosing to stand against a significant reduction pollution in favor, on behalf of not reducing the economies in other countries (as well as its own), shows that consideration was taken into account. It aligns with the content in the stimulus, but it doesn't give it that push to justify the recommendation to not sign the agreement. By contrast, (B) doesn't necessarily have to be true, but if we assume it is, it would be sufficient to arrive at the conclusion.