Help

Yes, I am interested as well.

@JayDee8732 and @Brad, Happy to help. We're told that no one with a serious medical problem would rely on the average person to prescribe treatment. serious medical problem - >not rely on average person for treatment We're then told that similarly, since a good public servant has the interest of the public at heart,.... The question asks us to choose a statement that would most reasonably complete the argument. We're looking to reconcile the conditional statement in the first sentence with the analogous argument that's being made in the second sentence. Let's think about this. As noted above, the first sentence can be diagrammed as serious medical problem - >not rely on average person for treatment In order to answer this question, it's best if we figure out how to draw connections between the first sentence and the second one. The second sentence tells us that a good public servant has the interest of the public at heart. We should probably equate this person to the person in the first sentence with a serious medical problem. The answer will probably have something to do with the public servant not relying on the average Joe for advice. It might be something else, but at least we've made a prediction. Let's look at the answer choices. (A) says, "public servants should not be concerned about the outcomes of public opinion surveys" The problem with (A) is that having concern about the outcomes of public opinion surveys is not the same thing as taking action or relying on these surveys to make decisions. Remember, this question is basically an argument by analogy, so we're looking for the answer that helps us to make the second sentence as similar as possible to the conditional statement of the first sentence. (A) doesn't mention relying on average people for advice/guidance, so we can get rid of it. (B) says, "the average public servant knows more about what is best for society than the average person does" We have zero support from the stimulus to use this statement to complete the argument. The stimulus never states that the average public servant knows more than the average person does. All we're told in the stimulus is that good public servants have the public's best interest at heart, so we can get rid of this answer choice. (C) says, "public servants should be more knowledgeable about the public good than they are" The issue with (C) is that the stimulus doesn't mention that anything is problematic with public servants' current actions or knowledge, so we can't make the assumption that public servants should be more knowledgeable than they currently are. We can get rid of this choice. (D) says, "public servants should base decisions on something other than the average person's recommendations" (D) does a great job in connecting the person with a serious medical issue to the public servant in the second sentence. If the person with a serious medical issue shouldn't rely on the average Joe to give them medical advice, then it makes sense that public servants shouldn't rely on the average Joe to make decisions about doing stuff for the public good. (D) completes the argument by helping us to make sense of the analogy between the first and second sentence. Thus, it's the correct answer. (E) says, "one is a good public servant if one is more knowledgeable about the public good than is the average person" There are a few problems with (E). For one, the only thing the stimulus said was that good public servants have the interest of the public at heart. We were never told that caring about the public is a sufficient condition to make someone a good public servant. Another problem with (E) is that in the stimulus, the concept we're dealing with is having the interest of the public at heart, and in (E), the concept we're dealing with is being knowledgeable about the public good. These are two fundamentally different concepts. Thus, we can get rid of this answer choice. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!

great explanation thank you!