PrepTest 134

Incorrect. There's no indication that a significant proportion of the society believes eating a diet of raw meat is healthy.

Incorrect. The conclusion here is that the government isn't justified in doing something, so this answer about what they "ought to do" runs counter to that.

Incorrect. This answer is about the groups advocating various positions, not how the government should respond to that, which is what the argument is about.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Opposing point - A diet of raw meat is dangerous, so the government should stop people from promoting that diet
Analogy - The government wouldn't be justified in banning a political viewpoint because it advocates something that's harmful to some
Conclusion - The danger doesn't justify government censorship here

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen (Principle) questions task us with justifying the conclusion based on the provided premises—which can sometimes sound repetitive of the argument itself!

Here, the conclusion is that a government isn't justified in censoring a view about eating raw meat. Why not? Because eating raw meat can be "very dangerous." The argument then clarifies this reasoning with an analogy—some political views are dangerous, but the government would not be justified in censoring those views.

So what ties the meat and political group arguments together? Both deal with promoting ideas that can be dangerous to people, and so the principle should connect that to the conclusion:
Just because something is dangerous doesn't mean the government is justified in banning it.

This is interesting in that we're normally justifying a conclusion about what should or shouldn't be done, but this answer is more about whether something serves as sufficient justification for an action—and it doesn't.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the argument. The conclusion was that the government shouldn't stop groups from advocating a raw-meat diet even though it's dangerous, so if promoting a dangerous idea isn't a sufficient reason to silence a group as this answer states, then the conclusion holds.

Key Takeaway:
Don't shy away from answers that feel repetitive in Strengthen (Principle) questions! In fact, the more repetitive of the argument an answer sounds, the better that answer probably is.

Incorrect. This answer would justify a citizen petitioning the government, not the actions of the government.