Q26 - It has been suggested that private, for-profit compani

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Principle (Strengthen)

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: Water shouldn't be supplied by private companies.
Evidence: Clean water is needed for health, and private companies are trying to PROFIT, not trying to promote health.

Any prephrase?
Principle Strengthen answer choices are almost always conditional statements. We want a rule that is triggered by what we know in the Evidence and delivers us the language of the Conclusion. What do we know about private companies in the Evidence that would allow us to say "THEY shouldn't supply our water"? We know they're not trying to promote health, and we want to make sure we have clean water for our health. A sample rule could be "If an entity is not actively trying to promote something we need water for, then that entity should not be supplying our water." The conversational objection to the author's argument is simply to say, "Couldn't the private companies do both? Get their profit but ALSO supply clean water that happens to promote our health? Maybe it's even in their profit interests to make sure they supply us with clean water!" A Strengthen answer could rule out either of those objections.

Correct answer:
E

Answer choice analysis:
A) "If water isn't also supplied by the govt, then a private company shouldn't be able to supply water." 2nd half looks perfect, but does the first half get triggered by the Evidence? Doesn't look like it. The Evidence didn't say "Water is / isn't also supplied by a government agency".

B) This rule allows one to prove " ----> SHOULD be supplied by govt.". We need a rule that says "---> SHOULDN'T be supplied by private". The first would only imply the second if we said "should ONLY be supplied by govt". Since the 2nd half of B would never prove our conclusion, it's not worth reading the 1st half. (As it turns out, it is not triggered because the Evidence didn't say "private companies are unwilling/unable to supply water".

C) "If you can't consistently keep clean water, you shouldn't be the supplier". The 2nd half gets us to the conclusion. Does the 1st half get triggered by the Evidence? No. The Evidence didn't say "private companies CAN'T consistently supply clean, safe water". (It certainly insinuated that concern, but that doesn't count).

D) This rule deals with proving whether or not something actually promotes health. Nowhere near our conclusion, not worth reading.

E) Contraposed: "If an organization's primary purpose is not promoting health, it shouldn't supply something necessary for human health." Does this get triggered by the Evidence? Yes, private companies' primary purpose is profit, not promoting health. Thus, private companies shouldn't supply something necessary for human health. Is water necessary for human health? Yes, we were told it was. Looks good.

Takeaway/Pattern: You can cut down on how much of a Principle-Strengthen answer choice you bother reading if you're clear on where the 2nd half your rule needs to take you (The Conclusion). B and D had bad 2nd halves, so there was no need to read the 1st half. Principle-Strengthen correct answers will almost always be purely regurgitative. They are just trying to bridge together the ideas in the argument core. Be very suspicious of new ideas .. "also supplied by govt", "unwilling/unable to supply", "not ABLE to consistently provide clean water".

#officialexplanation

[ttunden]

Hi Everyone

here is my analysis of this question

Ok, so we have a principle support which I like to treat as a sufficient assumption since it has the word "justify" in the question stem. We need something that makes the argument bullet proof and very sturdy.

Going in I will identify the conclusion and evidence and try to find the gap.
___________________________________________________
so the editorial's conclusion is that water should be supplied by private companies. Why? because clean water is required for human health, and purpose of private company is to produce profit.

We have this big gap here where the editorial is putting a forth a strong statement denying the private companies. The evidence doesn't get us to the conclusion, we need something saying oh because this is their purpose they aren't allowed, or because it is required we need this specific type. Something like that, and that was my prephase.

A well we have a conditional statement here, and we do not know if the sufficient condition is being met. Government agency was never stated in the argument. We have to get rid of this since it isn't something the editorial is assuming.

B similar to A. unwilling/unable out of scope, sufficient not being met and we still don't have anything about the government agency. Get rid of this.

C nothing about it consistently supplying clean, safe water. Get rid of this. This doesn't lead us to our conclusion.

D very wrong. It is switching the conditional relationship in the stimulus and saying that clean water is sufficient(guarantees) human health and it also doesn't get us to our conclusion in the stimulus.

E this looks good. This will allow our conclusion to be validly derived. If something necessary for Human health(clean water) --> provided by organization primary purpose promotion health. Ok so we have a statement that allows our conclusion to be derived. Private companies purpose is to produce profit. not promote health. and we know our sufficient condition is being met.

[can_I_ever_reach_a_170?]

I chose E by eliminating all the other answer choices.

When I saw E, I liked it. But I was not too confident with it because I didn’t like its Contrapositive much.

Isn’t the Contrapositive of E: Provided by an organization whose primary purpose is Not the promotion of health -> Something is Not necessary for health?

I expected and wanted the Contrapositive to be Not promote health -> Not supply something necessary for health.

Did I make a mistake, or I have to choose E because it’s the best among the others?

Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes, your version of the contrapositive also works.

I'm sort of deriving a different contrapositive, that is still functionally true based on that rule, but my version is a better fit for the information we have and the verdict we're trying to render.

But a more direct contrapositive is,
"If something shouldn't be provided by an org whose primary purpose is health, then that something isn't necessary for human health".

Why don't you make yourself like (E) more by applying it, as written, to the concept of "water".

We know that "water" is "necessary for human health".

According to this rule, "Water should be provided by an organization whose primary purpose is the promotion of health".

Does that strengthen the claim that "water should NOT be provided by private companies (whose purpose is not to promote health)"?

Yes, that strengthens quite a bit!