PrepTest 158

This principle doesn't quite resemble "Premises → Conclusion." It's hard to say that the automobile industry "should have known" that automobiles would contribute to global warming, eventually causing permafrost to melt under several arctic villages. Mateo doesn't state that automobile manufacturers should have known they'd cause this damage, either. So, this principle doesn't bridge the gap between Mateo's premises and conclusion.

This principle doesn't really resemble "Premises → Conclusion." Mateo doesn't conclude that automobile manufacturers "should be required to produce" their cars in a way that "minimizes harm to people and the environment." Mateo doesn't claim that the automobile industry should try to stop contributing to global warming in any way — Mateo just wants the automobile industry to pay for the arctic villagers' relocation. Therefore, this principle doesn't bridge the gap between Mateo's premises and conclusion.

This principle doesn't resemble "Premises → Conclusion." If we diagram this, here's what it would look like: "Product causes damages and product manufacturers are not required to pay for damages -> Government not required to pay for damages." However, Mateo's argument doesn't touch on whether the government should be required to pay for the villagers' relocation. Mateo doesn't bring up the government at all! So, this principle doesn't bridge the gap between Mateo's premises and conclusion.

Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Principle (Strengthen)

Passage Summary:
Global warming forced arctic villagers to relocate. Car pollution is a major cause of global warming. So, the automotive industry should have to pay for the villagers' relocation.

Strategy Overview:

1. Argument or facts? Always an argument, so identify the conclusion and premises
2. Identify gap between premises and conclusion
3. Anticipate, and diagram, the principle that will strengthen the argument
1. Should resemble: "Premise → Conclusion" or "NOT Conclusion → NOT Premise"

Answer Anticipation:
The phrase "following principles" in the question stem tells us this is the Strengthen variety of a Principle question. On these questions, we'll need to look for an answer choice that provides a principle, or rule, that connects the argument's premises to its conclusion. To do that, we usually just have to identify the premises and conclusion and then anticipate a principle that looks like "Premises → Conclusion."

Mateo's argument concerns arctic villagers having to relocate at great expense because of global warming. Mateo argues that automobile pollution is a major cause of global warming. From this premise, Mateo concludes that the automobile industry should be forced to pay for the villagers' relocation.

So, a principle that looks like "Premises → Conclusion" will connect Mateo's premise that the automobile industry is a major contributor to global warming to Mateo's conclusion that the automobile industry should pay for villagers' relocation, which was caused by global warming. The correct answer could look like, "Major contributor to global warming → Should pay for expenses caused by global warming" (e.g., "If an industry is a major contributor to global warming, then it should be forced to pay for expenses caused by global warming").

The correct answer could go broader than the topic of this argument, though. It could apply to any significant "problem" or "issue," not just global warming. So, the correct answer could also look like, "Major contributor to significant problem → Should pay for expenses caused by that problem" (e.g., "If an industry is a major contributor to a significant problem, then it should be forced to pay for expenses caused by that problem"). This would still strengthen Mateo's argument because global warming would be included under the umbrella term "significant problem." The principle would bridge Mateo's premise and Mateo's conclusion, strengthening the argument.

Answer Choice Explanation:
This principle resembles "Premises → Conclusion." If we diagram this, here's what it would look like: "Manufacturer creates a product that causes costly damage -> Manufacturer should be liable for the damage." This connects Mateo's premises and conclusion. Mateo's premises establish that automobile manufacturers created a product that contributed to global warming, thus causing costly damages to others when global warming forced arctic villagers to relocate. Mateo concludes that automobile manufacturers should be forced to pay for this relocation, which is synonymous with the manufacturers being "liable" for the damages created by the product. So, this principle establishes that if Mateo's premises are true, we have to accept Mateo's conclusion. So this answer choice is correct!

Key Takeaway:
Most correct answers to Principle questions will take the form of "Premises → Conclusion."

This principle doesn't resemble "Premises → Conclusion." If we diagram this, here's what it would look like: "Industry contributes to global warming should pay for damage to communities → Industry has a general obligation to help pay for all global warming damage." Experienced test-takers will immediately realize this answer choice is wrong because it places Mateo's conclusion on the "if" side of the "if-then" statement. Remember, we can only make conclusions about the "then" side. Moreover, Mateo's argument doesn't touch on whether the automobile industry has a "general obligation" to pay for global warming-related damages. Therefore, this principle doesn't bridge the gap between Mateo's premises and conclusion.