Consumer advocate: There is no doubt

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct53% picked this

   The government can bear responsibility for that which it

   Why this is right

   First let's clarify the vocab here: If A causes B, and B causes C, then A indirectly causes C and B directly causes C (B is the proximate cause). The author is clearly thinking that the government isn't just responsible for the increasing consumer demand, but also for the further ripple effects of gas prices rising. If we negated this answer it would say, "The government cannot be responsible for something it indirectly causes", which would destroy this argument.

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

   53%
2. B

   Out of Scope: unforeseen12% picked this

   The government is responsible for some unforeseen consequences of

   This is tempting, but we don't actually know whether the rising gas prices were unforeseen or expected. Negating this and getting "the government isn't responsible for unforeseen consequences" wouldn't necessarily weaken the argument, since we don't know whether the rising gas prices was an unforeseen consequence.

   12%
3. C

   Too Strong18% picked this

   Consumer demand for gasoline cannot increase without causing gasoline prices

   Too Strong: X can't go up without Y going up All we know is that in this case, an increase in consumer demand caused an increase in gas prices. The author isn't committed to the idea that this connection always holds. I could say, "Tony popped a balloon behind Angela's head, causing her to spill a drink, which then led Billy to slip on the floor. Thus, Tony is responsible for Billy's slipping." That assignment of blame isn't assuming that "a drink cannot be spilled without someone slipping on the floor".

   18%
4. D

   Out of Scope1% picked this

   The government has an obligation to ensure that demand for fuel does

   Out of Scope: obligation Too Strong: ensure Whether a government has an obligation to do something is a separate issue from whether it's responsible for causing something. I can say that the government's policy caused a scarcity of toilet paper at supermarkets. That doesn't mean I'm assuming that the government has an obligation to ensure that supermarkets do not run low on toilet paper.

   1%
5. E

   Too Strong: tend to Opposite Logic16% picked this

   If the government pursues policies that do not increase the demand for fuel, gasoline prices

   If I say, "Abby is friendly, and she got good customer service at Starbucks", that doesn't mean I'm assuming that "if you're not friendly, you tend to not get good customer service at Starbucks". Maybe most people, friendly or not, get good customer service. Similarly, we heard that "the govt pursued a policy that increased demand, and as a result prices went up". That doesn't allow us to say the author is assuming, "when the govt doesn't pursue such policies, prices tend to remain stable". Maybe the price of gas tends to be volatile, whether or not the government pursues a policy that increases demand. If I say, "Megan is responsible for making Jack laugh", I'm not assuming that "If Megan isn't around, Jack tends to not laugh."

   16%