Town councillor: The only reason for the town to have ordinances restricting where skateboarding can be done would be to protect children from danger. Skateboarding in the town’s River Park is undoubtedly dangerous, but we should not pass an ordinance prohibiting it. If children cannot skateboard in the park, they will the streets is more dangerous than skateboarding in the park.
What this question is testing
Conclusion
The councillor's point: don't ban skateboarding in River Park, because the ban would push kids onto something even more dangerous — the streets.
Evidence
The reasoning is straightforward. Park skateboarding is dangerous, sure. But if the park is closed off, kids will go skateboard in the streets, and that's worse. So the ordinance would produce more danger than it eliminates.
Evaluate
The councillor's argument is missing a general principle that says Plug that principle in, and the argument is airtight: the ordinance would create more danger (streets are worse than park), so by the principle, don't enact it.
Watch for trap principles that say something different — like "only restrict activities that pose danger to participants" (too narrow), or "always restrict dangerous activities" (too broad and pulls the wrong way), or principles that defer to parents instead of the council.
Goal
Pick the principle that says ordinances meant to eliminate danger should not be enacted if they would lead to greater dangers.
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.