PrepTest 132

Incorrect. The conclusion in the stimulus is about whether private companies should supply water, not whether they should be allowed to supply it. Note that the exception here about government agencies supplying water is arguably met since the stimulus talks about areas where water is unavailable now—if it's not available, then it's not being supplied by anyone, let alone a government agency.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of the willingness or ability to supply water, and the conclusion isn't about government agencies supplying it, so this answer is wrong in multiple ways.

Incorrect. There's no indication private companies wouldn't be able to consistently provide safe, clean water.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't connect to the judgment in the conclusion, so it won't justify the reasoning.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Principle (Strengthen)

Stimulus Summary:
Private company goal—Produce profit, not promote health
Clean water is essential for human health
Therefore: Private companies shouldn't be in charge of supplying clean water

Answer Anticipation:
Principle (Strengthen) questions generally describe a scenario and reach a judgment in the conclusion, and the correct answer connects that scenario to the judgment in the conclusion. And, as we see here, many conclude what should or shouldn't be done. When that happens, the correct answer generally takes the form of:

If (detail from the premises), then X should(n't) be done.

The key is identifying the relevant details to anticipate the correct answer. Here, the conclusion is that private companies shouldn't be providing clean water. Why note? There are two ideas that build together. The first is that clean water is essential to human health. The second is that the purpose of these corporations is to make money, not promote health. It makes sense that these would be the relevant statements, as strong statements ("is essential") and statements of purpose/motive are both statements that generally lead us to correct answers.

The correct answer, therefore, should connect them to the judgment. Something like:

If something is essential to human health, and an organization is dedicated to things other than health, then they shouldn't be in charge of it.

Answer Explanation:
Clean water is established as being necessary for human health, so this principle applies to it and guarantees it should be supplied by an organization with a purpose of promoting health. Private companies aren't in that group, so this establishes that they're not the ones who should be supplying water.

Key Takeaway:
Note that normally we'd be looking for an answer choice that talks about who should not be supplying water, not who should be supplying it. Principle (Strengthen) questions with should or shouldn't conclusions generally have an answer that matches with the exact same term. However, "generally" isn't the same as always, so be careful with your eliminations—especially on answers that are dealing with the concepts you identified in your anticipation.