PrepTest 137

Incorrect. This answer highlights that low-income individuals are less likely to bear the burden of rock ice, as they don't drive cars and thus wouldn't see their car damaged by the salt.

Incorrect. The noted burden is about the damage to cars, not the cost of the program itself. There's no indication that using rock salt is more expensive than the alternative currently in use.

Incorrect. This answer is very close, but it doesn't establish that low-income individuals aren't driving newer cars. It tries to imply it by suggesting that they're "priced out" of buying these cars. Without directly establishing that, however, it could be that low-income individuals are still buying cars but it takes up more of their income.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
P: Burden of policy change falls disproportionately on low income → Shouldn't make change

A: A city is going to restart using rock salt to de-ice roads because new cars are better protected from the damage it causes, but they shouldn't.

Answer Anticipation:
Most Principle/Application questions bring up a scenario that has a justifiable conclusion while failing to establish that it meets the sufficient condition of the Principle, and this question is no different.

In order to justify the conclusion that the reintroduction of rock salt shouldn't happen, the Application needs to establish that the burden of the policy falls disproportionately on low-income individuals. The noted burden of rock salt is that it damages cars, but newer cars are better protected from it. Therefore, it's likely that the correct answer will highlight that low-income individuals are more likely to own an older car that doesn't have these protections.

Answer Explanation:
This answer directly establishes that low-income individuals are more likely to have older cars that are less protected from rock salt than other people, and thus they would bear more of the burden of it. The Principle applies and the Application is justified.

Key Takeaway:
Most Principle/Application questions have an Application that fails to meet the sufficient condition of the Principle. When this happens, the correct answer connects the details that are established in the scenario with that sufficient condition.

Incorrect. If anything, this suggests the low-income individuals would bear less of the burden since they're not driving over the rock salt and thus not damaging their cars.