PrepTest 152

Jump out of this answer choice as soon as it says what the government "should not" do. The Principle/Application is about what the government must do, not what it should do. Additionally, this argument doesn't deal with other properties.

This answer might justify government action to appropriate or not appropriate private land, but it doesn't speak to compensation.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Principle (Strengthen)

Stimulus Summary:
Principle: Government appropriates private property ==> Offer fair compensation
Application: If the government diminishes property values through an action, then it must offer fair compensation.

Strategy Overview:
Once created for a question type, we can just reuse that for future questions.

Answer Anticipation:
Since the necessary conditions of the Principle and Application match here, we need to look at the sufficient conditions to see where the gap is. Here, the principle is about appropriating property, while the application is about diminishing property values. That gap must be bridged to justify the application, so we should look for an answer that connects diminishing property values to appropriating.

Answer Explanation:
This answer matches our anticipation perfectly. If diminishing value is the same as appropriating, then the application of the principle holds.

Key Takeaway:
This is the third question in this section alone where the key gap was between the sufficient condition of a conditional premise, and another premise given by the author. This question was slightly different from the first two in that the gap was between the sufficient condition of two conditionals, rather than the sufficient condition and a triggering premise, but the same logic applies. This type of error in reasoning is very common, so be on the lookout for it whenever conditional logic is present.

If anything, this answer choice would justify not compensating property owners after an appropriation, since the property owners are solely responsible for economic risks, including the risk of government seizure.

Oh, Kelo. Dear reader, you'll know the beauties of this Supreme Court case soon enough. In the meantime, you don't need this knowledge to see this answer is wrong. The argument is not about whether the government can appropriate private land; it's about providing compensation when doing so.