Professor: Each government should do

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong18% picked this

   Only governments that subsidize high-quality day care take an interest in the well-being of all the children in

   The author isn't assuming anything about which specific types of government do / don't take an interest in the well-being of all children. She's talking in normative terms about what should be the case, not what is the case. Since this is conditional, we can look at it as a conditional statement and ourselves if our author made this move: Take an interest in government well being of all ? subsidizes high children in their society quality daycare She did not say "Because this govt takes an interest in the well being of all its children, we can conclude that this govt subsidizes high quality daycare".

   18%
2. B

   Irrelevant: eliminate benefits for adults2% picked this

   Government subsidy of high-quality day care would not be so expensive that it would cause a government to

   If we negate this (which we should, since it has a "not"), it's saying that were the government to subsidize high-quality daycare, it would cause the government to eliminate benefits for adults. So what? Is that an objection? Does that weaken the argument? No, because the author is saying what the government should do based on a principle that says the government should do all it can to improve the well-being of the children. The principle doesn't care about whether or not adult benefits are compromised.

   2%
3. C

   Too Strong3% picked this

   High-quality day care should be subsidized only for those who could not

   Too Strong: only those who can't afford The conclusion is simply "the govt should help finance high-quality daycare". The author never specifies that it can only be for the people who couldn't otherwise afford it. If we negated this answer and said "high-quality daycare should also be subsidized for some people who could afford it", that doesn't hurt the argument.

   3%
4. D

   Correct76% picked this

   At least some children would benefit from high-quality

   Why this is right

   This just deals with the big missing link between "high quality daycare" and "improve well-being of children". If we negate this, it says "ZERO children would benefit from high-quality daycare". Does that weaken? Of course! The author is appealing to a principle that says governments should do whatever they can to improve the well-being of children. If zero children would benefit from high-quality daycare, then it can't improve their well-being, so this principle wouldn't apply to it at all.

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

   76%
5. E

   Out of Scope Comparison2% picked this

   Government is a more efficient provider of certain services than is

   The author never discusses 'private enterprise' and doesn't claim the government is the "best" at providing daycare efficiently. It just says "if the government doesn't help pay for high-quality day care, then some families will not have it as an available option."

   2%