PrepTest 139

Incorrect. This answer is about letting students do what they want as long as it doesn't disrupt others, so it follows the principle.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't fully establish information necessary for the principle to apply since it only states that there isn't evidence that the scientist will see a negative effect. However, it doesn't contradict the principle, so it's not the correct answer.

Incorrect. This answer goes out of its way to prevent restrictions on actions, so it aligns with the goals of the principle and thus isn't inconsistent with it (even if it does include a lot of pieces that aren't justified by it).

Incorrect. This answer is about a justified restriction on activity to prevent harm to others. While that's a negation of the principle and thus isn't supported, negations aren't inconsistent with a conditional principle—a negation can be true at the same time as a conditional (in fact, if both are true, the conditional is a biconditional).

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Cannot Be True (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Goal - Encourage personal responsibility
Principle - not Prevent negative effects on others → Society shouldn't restrict people's actions

Answer Anticipation:
The Editorial establishes a goal/rationale before diving into the principle here, so we called that out separately instead of trying to work it into the conditional itself. It may play a role in the answer, but the answer might limit itself just to the principle, so having them separate might help us focus on the right part of the stimulus in analyzing the answers.

"[E]xcept" functions the same as "Unless"—it establishes an exception to a rule that otherwise applies universally. In other words, if the exception doesn't happen, then the universally applicable rule does. That's why these words can be treated as "if not"—if not the exception, then the expected situation happens.

Our principle is laid out in a manner that will reflect the argument structure (necessary conditions line up with conclusions, and "should/n't" statements are almost always conclusions), so we're ready to find an answer that is inconsistent with the principle—in other words, it contradicts it.

To contradict a conditional statement, a situation must establish the sufficient condition and then say the necessary condition doesn't happen. So here, we need an answer that establishes a restriction on an action despite in a way that doesn't prevent negative effects on others.

Answer Explanation:
These restrictions are being put in place to protect people from themselves, not to prevent negative effects of people's decision to eat them on others. That meets the sufficient condition of the principle (restrictions that aren't meant to prevent an action's harm on people other than the person taking the action), and thus the principle justifies not placing such restrictions. In stating that these foods should be banned, this argument establishes the sufficient condition of the premise while concluding the opposite of the necessary condition, thus contradicting the principle. This is our answer.

Key Takeaway:
Note that there were answers here that weren't fully justified by the principle, but they were incorrect because the question stem didn't ask us to find an answer that wasn't consistent with the stimulus, but rather one that was inconsistent with it. The former would ask us to find an answer that wasn't justified by the conclusion, whereas the latter asks us for an answer that actively contradicts it.