PT151 S2 Q2 ExplanationPhysician: A tax on saturated fat

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Unrelated to Goal1% picked this

   A tax on unhealthy foods should be implemented only if it can be known with a high degree of certainty that it

   This is a principle about whether or not a tax should be implemented in the first place. We need a principle about whether a tax that was already implemented should be repealed so soon.

   1%
2. B

   Correct95% picked this

   It is not possible to adequately gauge the impact of a tax intended to affect people’s health until the tax has been in

   Why this is right

   Is this applicable to our tax? Was it a tax intended to affect people's health? Yes, it was intended to reduce consumption of unhealthy foods. So this principle applies to our situation. What is it saying about our situation? It says, "If the tax hasn't been in effect for at least one year, then it's impossible to adequately gauge its impact." We were looking for shouldn't if only been in effect ? repeal for seven months it yet This is basically giving us if only been in effect ? impossible to gauge for seven months its impact So it will strengthen if we feel pretty good about this connection: if impossible to should not gauge the impact ? repeal of a new tax yet it yet Sure, that seems like a fair common sense move to make. This type of correct answer is more like a correct answer on Strengthen, whereas it's very common for correct answers on Strengthen + Principle to feel more like Sufficient Assumption.

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

   95%
3. C

   Unrelated to Goal2% picked this

   Before any law intended to improve people’s health is implemented, all foreseeable negative consequences should

   This is a principle about what to do before a tax is initially implemented. This principle would only allow us to scold the people who wrote the law, for what they may have failed to do while writing the law. We need a principle that allows us to scold the people who repealed the law too soon.

   2%
4. D

   Opposite of Goal2% picked this

   A law intended to improve people’s health should be repealed if it is clear that most people

   This is saying, "If most people are evading the law, we should repeal it". First problem — we don't know if most (more than 50%) of people are evading the law. Bigger problem — our goal here is to support the conclusion that they shouldn't have repealed it so soon. This is a rule that allows one to conclude that you should repeal something.

   2%
5. E

   Unrelated to Goal1% picked this

   A tax on unhealthy foods should be applied only to those foods that are widely believed to

   This is a principle about whether or not a tax like this should have been implemented in the first place. We need a principle about whether a tax that was already implemented should be repealed so soon.

   1%