Question Type:
Principle Support (Strengthen/Sufficient)
Stimulus Breakdown:
Trying to solve your friend's marriage problems leads to hurt feelings. Therefore, doing so is unjustified.
Answer Anticipation:
Valid.
Just kidding. But probably good advice.
The conclusion brings up whether something is justified or not, but the premises never define what that means. Instead, the premises establish this action leads to resentment. The correct answer will have to bridge the gap between something that was well-meaning but caused resentment and being unjustified.
Correct answer:
(E)
Answer choice analysis:
(A) Out of scope. This answer misses the necessary connection to "unjustified".
(B) Out of scope. The argument is about figuring out if a given action was justified or not (i.e., right or not). This answer choice tells you the rules once you've already figured out if an action is right.
(C) Out of scope. If anything, good intentions don't justify getting involved.
(D) Inverse/degree. While the outcome is more important than intentions based on the stimulus, this answer choice goes too far in saying that they're irrelevant. The author might agree that good intentions are necessary to intervention being justified in another argument that aligns with this one.
(E) Bingo. Rephrased: If an action is well-intentioned but doesn't have good results, it's not justified.
Takeaway/Pattern:
For Principle Strengthen questions, look for new judgments in the conclusion that aren't defined by the premises. The correct answer will connect the situation to that judgment.
#officialexplanation