PrepTest 115

Incorrect. The argument never discusses restrictions on researching the medical usefulness of plants and animals, so the statement in question can't support not doing that.

Incorrect. The argument never explicitly brings up a view to be undermined, but it implies one by recommending against something. However, it recommends against a more general lifting of industrial regulations, so the implied opposing view is in favor of restricting those regulations. The fact that new medicines are derived from endangered species, however, argues against such relaxed restrictions, so this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. The argument is in favor of regulating industrial activity, so it wouldn't characterize current regulations as "overregulation." It also never makes the opposing argument, so this answer saying that a statement in the stimulus supports the opposing view must be wrong.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Goal - Make new medicines more available
Approach - Relax regulations on their sale/manufacture
Recommendation - Don't lift regulations that restrict more general industrial activity
Why not? - If environmental regs are lifted, endangered species will die off, and new medicines are usually derived from them, so relaxing all regulations could end up hurting the goal

Answer Anticipation:
What a stimulus! It presents a goal and an approach, and then recommends against a more general version of the approach. These elements fall into common patterns, which can help us to identify how an argument works. This is especially helpful in Argument Structure questions!

So here, after recommending against the more general version of the approach, the argument discusses why that's the case, showing how the more general version could actually work against the goal. The statement in question is information that, with the result of the more general approach, would lead to the problems with reaching the goal.

So the statement in question is a premise that supports the intermediate conclusion that a more general approach would work against the stated goal, thus justifying the recommendation/main point.

Answer Explanation:
This answer correctly describes the role of the statement in question. It serves to connect the outcome of a relaxation on industrial regulations generally (the extinction of such species) to a frustration of the goal (increased availability of new medicines) by showing how the new medicines are linked to the endangered species.

Key Takeaway:
Argument Structure questions tend to have more complex argument structures since understanding that structure is the whole point of the question! As such, using common elements and patterns to help break it down can be a great way to quickly understand that complexity.

Incorrect. The argument discusses only one goal—increasing the availability of new medicines. As such, this answer about beneficial results more broadly is out of scope.