The government-owned gas company has

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct97% picked this

   Government-owned companies have the right to do whatever private businesses have the

   Why this is right

   This is exactly the bridge the argument needs. The author argues from "a private gas company could do this" to "the government-owned gas company can do this." That move requires the principle that government-owned companies have whatever rights private businesses have. Apply (A) to the facts and the conclusion follows directly: private companies have the right to sell appliances → government-owned companies have that same right.

   Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   97%
2. B

   Bad Match0% picked this

   A government should always take seriously the complaints

   This says the government should take merchant complaints seriously. The argument's conclusion is that the company is within its rights regardless of merchant complaints — i.e., the merchants' protests don't change the legal/ethical analysis. This principle, if anything, points the other way (suggesting complaints should weigh in). It doesn't justify the conclusion.

   0%
3. C

   Bad Match0% picked this

   Private businesses have no right to compete with

   This says private businesses have no right to compete with government monopolies. The argument is about whether the government-owned company can compete with private merchants — the opposite direction. (C) doesn't address whether government-owned companies have the right to compete, which is the question at issue.

   0%
4. D

   Bad Match0% picked this

   There is nothing wrong with a government-owned company selling products so long as owners of private

   This principle ties government rights to whether private companies complain. But the argument doesn't say anything about whether private gas companies are complaining — the complaints come from merchants. And the argument concludes that the company is within its rights without making the conclusion contingent on absence of private-company complaints. The principle adds a wrinkle the argument doesn't need.

   0%
5. E

   Bad Match2% picked this

   There is nothing wrong with private companies competing against

   This principle is about private companies competing against each other. The argument is about a government-owned company competing with private merchants — different parties, different framing. (E) doesn't bridge the argument's leap from private rights to government rights.

   2%