Politician: Some cities have reversed

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct72% picked this

   Evaluation of legislation should take into account actual results, not

   Why this is right

   This is a very surprisingly weak correct answer. It's basically just affirming a Necessary Assumption of the argument. The one thing that makes it worthy of coming back to (it's not very tempting on a first pass), is that it is a principle about evaluating legislation. We're trying to support a conclusion that is about whether or not such legislation should be commended, so we need some rule of thumb for when we should or shouldn't be praising a piece of legislation. This is telling us that as we go about making the evaluation of whether or not to praise a piece of legislation, we should take into account actual results, not intentions alone. In this argument, it's clear that the author was taking into account actual results (its principle beneficiaries turned out to be yuppies), and not just intentions (these programs were intended to help the long-term residents). This answer has a very mild strengthening effect; it just affirms that the premise (about intentions vs. results) is in fact relevant to the conclusion (which is about evaluating the legislation as commendable or not). Had there been any other usable answer, this certainly would not have been the best available.

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

   72%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match4% picked this

   The wealthier members of a community should not have undue influence

   We're looking for a principle about whether or not legislation should be commended. This is a principle about whether or not wealthy people should have undue influence on the government. Since that has no language in common with our conclusion, this principle won't do anything to help us support our conclusion. Also, the fact that well-to-do professionals ended up benefiting from these laws doesn't mean we know that they had any undue influence on the government that created these laws. It's possible, from all we've read, that the government was trying to write laws that would help long-term residents and it just didn't clearly foresee that the ramifications of the legislation would actually help wealthier member of the community.

   4%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match16% picked this

   A community's tax laws and zoning regulations should apply equally to all individuals

   We're looking for a principle about whether or not legislation should be commended. This is a principle about whether or not tax laws and zoning regulations should apply equally. Since that has no language in common with our conclusion, this principle won't do anything to help us support our conclusion. Presumably the laws and regulations in this legislation did apply equally to all residents. So the legislation potentially accorded with this principle; that doesn't give us any way to argue that the legislation shouldn't be commended.

   16%
4. D

   Bad Trigger Match7% picked this

   Legislation that is not to anyone's benefit should not

   This is by far the most attractive answer on the first pass, because we're looking for a principle to support the conclusion that certain legislation "should not be commended." However, this rule looks like this: If legislation is not to → then it should not anyone's benefit be commended We can't trigger this rule because this legislation was to some people's benefit; it benefited the yuppies. If the trigger of a rule doesn't apply, then the answer has no effect whatsoever.

   7%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

   Laws that give advantage to the well-to-do can also benefit society

   We're looking for a principle that would support the idea that "this legislation should not be commended". This answer has no language that relates to whether or not we should praise a given law, so it doesn't seem like it could be a correct answer. The legislation we're talking about is an example of a law that gives advantage to the well-to-do. According to this answer, that means that such legislation can also benefit society as a whole. Is that going to help us argue that this legislation should not be commended? Of course not. It would help us argue that it should be commended, if anything, since it would be commendable to benefit society as a whole.

   1%