Logical reasoning PrepTest 156 · Section 2 · Question 12

This principle doesn't resemble "Premises → Conclusion." The politician's premises don't establish that stronger air quality regulations will impede the growth of big industries. The politician says these industries might relocate, but that doesn't mean the industries will stop growing. In short, this "if-then" statement doesn't connect the letter's premises or conclusion, so it's incorrect.

This principle doesn't resemble "Premises → Conclusion." The politician's premises aren't about whether "the people" are unwilling to accept stronger air quality regulations. The politician's argument makes it seem like industries won't be terribly thrilled with stricter regulations, but "the people" include far more than just titans of industry. In short, this "if-then" statement doesn't connect the letter's premises or conclusion, so it's wrong.

Once we take the flipside of this principle, it resembles "Premises → Conclusion." We can initially diagram it using "only," a "then" keyword. That gives us "Government policy altered → Compelling evidence that the consequences of altering > consequences of not altering." Once we take the flipside, we'll have "NOT compelling evidence that the consequences of altering > consequences of not altering → NOT government policy altered." In other words, "If there isn't compelling evidence that the consequences of altering a government policy are better than the consequences of not altering that policy, then we shouldn't alter the policy."

The politician's premises establish that "there is not enough evidence" that the consequences of altering the government's policy and imposing stronger air quality regulations (reducing pollution and losing jobs) will be better than the consequences of not altering the policy (keeping jobs and pollution levels the same). Based on this evidence, the politician asserts that we shouldn't alter the government's policy by imposing stronger air quality regulations. In short, this "if-then" statement connects the letter's premises to its conclusion. We can select this answer choice and finish up this question.

This principle doesn't resemble "Premises → Conclusion." Instead, this resembles "Premises → NOT conclusion." This principle establishes that if retaining a government policy and changing it both have positive and negative consequences, then the government policy should be changed. (In the principle, the phrase "in those cases in which" is a universal claim, meaning that "retaining the policy ... " is the "if" condition.)

The politician's premises establish that retaining the government's current air quality regulations and changing the regulations will have both positive and negative consequences. If we retain, we'll keep jobs, but pollution levels won't decrease; if we change, pollution levels will decrease, but we'll lose jobs. Based on these premises, (D)'s principle would demand the politician to conclude that we should change the air regulations. However, the politician reaches the opposite conclusion: we shouldn't change the regulations! Rather than strengthen the politician's argument, this answer choice weakens it.

This principle doesn't quite doesn't resemble "Premises → Conclusion." The politician's premises establish that we lack "clear evidence about whether a given action will have a specified consequence." The politician says that we don't know if the decreased pollution from the stronger regulations would offset the resulting job loss. Based on (E)'s principle, we "should assume it will have that consequence when deciding whether to perform the action." So, (E)'s principle demands that we should assume that the decreased pollution from the stronger regulations will offset the resulting job loss. But if the pros outweigh the cons, we probably should impose stricter regulations, contrary to what this politician concludes. So, rather than strengthen the politician's argument, this answer choice weakens it.