PrepTest 151

Incorrect. This answer is about implementing the tax in the first place, whereas the conclusion is about repealing it. It's therefore out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
This is a weird stimulus, in that the author clearly reaches a conclusion, but there aren't really any premises or argument supporting that conclusion.

A fat tax intended to make people eat healthier was repealed after 7 months because of unintended consequences (people going two towns over to buy some cheeseburgers).

Conclusion: The tax shouldn't have been repealed at this point.

Answer Anticipation:
We know a few things. The intent of the law was to make people healthier. It's been around for a short time. It had unintended consequences.

In order to justify the conclusion that the law shouldn't have been repealed, we'll need to find an answer that connects a fact to the conclusion. It might also mention that unintended consequences aren't enough, by themselves, to justify repealing a law.

Answer Explanation:
This is definitely an answer that we'd only select after a full pass through the answers. However, after ruling everything else out, this answer does the most to justify the conclusion. If it's impossible to see if the law had its intended effects on health until its been in effect for a year, 7 months would be too soon to determine the efficacy and it was too soon to repeal the law.

Key Takeaway:
If you're uncertain on an answer, defer and come back to it. It's a lot easier to feel confident in an answer you're not 100% certain is correct if you are pretty certain the rest of the answers are wrong.

Incorrect. This answer is about what should be done pre-implementation. The argument is about whether a law already in effect should be repealed, so this answer is out of scope. Additionally, the argument doesn't mention whether the unintended consequences were foreseeable or not.

Incorrect. We're trying to justify the author's conclusion that a certain law should not have been repealed. This answer about a condition under which a law should be repealed isn't relevant to justifying the opposite conclusion.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't establish whether saturated fats are considered to be the most unhealthy, so we can't determine if this answer is in scope.