mshinners
Thanks Received: 82
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 367
Joined: March 17th, 2014
Location: New York City
 
 
 

Q8 - Politician: Some cities have reversed the decay

by mshinners Fri Dec 31, 1999 8:00 pm

Question Type:
Principle Support (Strengthen/Sufficient)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Situation: A certain method of revitalizing areas helped the rich owners and hurt the long-term residents who it was intended to help.
Judgment: The legislation shouldn't be commended.

Answer Anticipation:
If an action has outcomes that cut against the intended ones, it shouldn't be commended.

Correct answer:
(A)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) While not sufficient to get to the conclusion, the politician is absolutely relying on an analysis of outcomes rather than just intentions in evaluating the legislation. I'd leave this on my first pass and select it after ruling out the rest.

(B) Out of scope. There is nothing to indicate that the wealthy influenced the process; just that they unintentionally benefited from it.

(C) Out of scope. While the benefits aren't equally flowing to all groups, there's no reason to think these laws/regulations are being applied unequally.

(D) Out of scope. This legislation is to the benfit of the well-to-do professionals.

(E) Out of scope/opposite. This answer is out of scope because the argument is about intention, outcome, and commendation, while this answer is about benefit to society (the politician could believe that it shouldn't be commended even if it benefited everyone unless it had that intention). However, if anything, this cuts against the politician's anti-Robin Hood argument.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Principle Support questions tend to have answers that are sufficient to get to the judgment in the conclusion, but they don't have to get you all the way there.

#officialexplanation
User avatar
 
LolaC289
Thanks Received: 2
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 93
Joined: January 03rd, 2018
 
 
 

Re: Q8 - Politician: Some cities have reversed the decay

by LolaC289 Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:40 am

(D) may be tempting because it seems like the legislation is to the professionals' benefit but not to the long-term residents' benefit. However, what (D) is saying is the legislation is not to ANYONE's benefit, which means it is beneficial to NONE. Note to distinguish it from not to EVERYONE's benefit.
 
JakeA559
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 4
Joined: November 01st, 2018
 
 
 

Re: Q8 - Politician: Some cities have reversed the decay

by JakeA559 Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:06 pm

I am having trouble with d) Legislation that is not to anyone's benefit, doesnt that mean that a legislation that doesnt benefit SOMEONE should not be commended?

Also do you have any tips for dealing with double negatives like this one?