The relaxation of regulations governing

Answer choices

1. A

   Wrong Conclusion4% picked this

   a reason for not restricting research into the medical usefulness of

   "A reason for" correctly aligns with our desire for Support. But this claim is a reason for not loosening industrial activity generally. It's a reason against "a general deregulatory approach".

   4%
2. B

   Wrong Role13% picked this

   evidence for a point of view that the argument is designed

   This is saying that our claim is Opposing our author, whereas we wanted Supporting our author. This answer is saying, "It's support for the Opposing view (the view the author is trying to undermine)." If it's supporting the author's opponent, then it's opposing the author (or at least that's reason enough to consider it a mismatch).

   13%
3. C

   Too Strong4% picked this

   an illustration of the potential disaster that could result from continued overregulation

   Too Strong: potential disaster Not an Illustration Out of Scope: continued overregulation First of all, the author is never speaking in apocalyptic terms like "potential disaster". The author is giving advice. "We should deregulate drug production but not other stuff, because deregulating other stuff would interfere with the whole point of deregulating drug production." Secondly, an illustration of the potential disaster that could result from continued overregulation would be an example of a disaster .... In Chile, they overregulated corn production and it led to famine Finally, the author does not think industrial activity is overregulated. She is actually arguing against deregulating industry (other than drug manufacturing).

   4%
4. D

   Correct69% picked this

   a link between the extinction of species and the potentially decreased availability

   Why this is right

   This sort of expresses how the two premises combine to give us our Intermediate Conclusion. Since deregulation in general would involve getting rid of strict environmental regulations, plants and animals (many of which are the basis for most new medications) would go extinct. Thus, deregulation in general could result in missing out on developing new meds based on those now-extinct animals and plants.

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

   69%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match10% picked this

   support for the hypothesis that only very narrowly focused efforts at deregulation of industrial activity

   There isn't any conclusion saying "only very narrowly focused efforts at deregulating industry have beneficial results". The author has two conclusions being supported: - deregulating medicine (in order to increase the availability of new meds) should not be accompanied by broader deregulation because ... - deregulating broadly can undermine the goal of deregulating drug production for the sake of making more new meds available.

   10%