Q20 - Politician: Our government's Ministry of the Environme

[Laura Damone]

Question Type:
Strengthen: Principle Support

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: The newly formed Ministry of Health should not issue scientific assessments that relate to health issues. Premises: The Ministry of the Environment issues scientific assessments that relate to the ecological impacts of industrial activities. These assessments are often inaccurate due to political pressure. The Ministry of Health will also be subject to political pressures related to health issues.

Answer Anticipation:
Like so many Principle Support questions, this one concludes a recommendation. That means we need an answer that governs that recommendation, following this format: "if (thing we know from premise), then (recommendation from conclusion)." So in this case, "If (insert something we know is true about the Ministry), then (should not issue assessment)." We should also be on the lookout for a correct answer choice that presents this in the contrapositive: Assessments should be issued only if (something we know is NOT true about the Ministry).

Correct answer:
B

Answer choice analysis:
(A) No recommendation here, so this one is definitely wrong.

(B) Nailed it! If you can' t be confident in accuracy (which the Ministries can't be), then you shouldn't issue an assessment.

(C) Wrong recommendation! We're not trying to conclude who should or should not exercise pressure. We're trying to conclude the Ministry should not issue an assessment.

(D) Now, this one is tempting because it deals with the right recommendation (issuing assessments). But it deals with it the wrong way. If you diagrammed this one, it would be: successfully resist political pressure to change contents --> ministry should issue assessment. That moves in the wrong direction. It can never help us conclude that the ministry should NOT issue an assessment. If you picked this one, you may have fallen prey to an illegal negation trap, thinking that because the ministry can't resist pressure, it shouldn't issue the assessment.

(E) Wrong recommendation, again! We're not trying to conclude who should or should not resist pressure. We're trying to conclude the Ministry should not issue an assessment.

Takeaway/Pattern:
When a Principle Support question concludes a recommendation, prephrase "if (thing we know from premise), then (recommendation from conclusion)." Contrapose that prephrase, then go to the answers. Eliminate any that don't address a recommendation (A), conclude a different recommendation (C and E), move in the wrong direction (D), or hinge on something the premises didn't establish to be true.

#officialexplanation