PT152 S4 Q8 ExplanationQuartzbrook Farms wanted to test

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Correct80% picked this

   Governments can rightfully require product testing deemed necessary to protect public safety but cannot rightfully prohibit testing even if such testing is

   Why this is right

   This rule says that "governments cannot rightfully prohibit testing". In our paragraph, the government is prohibiting testing. Simple as that. Of course LSAC is making the simplicity harder to see by starting this answer with a rule that doesn't apply to this situation: if testing a product is governments deemed necessary to → can require it protect public safety And then the second rule given, the one that is relevant to our situation has an "even if" idea attached at the end. Suppose I tell you: I'm coming to your recital, even if I have to miss a work meeting to do it. The core truth is "I'm coming to your recital". There's no logical difference between whether coming to the recital does / doesn't force me to miss a work meeting. I'm coming either way. Similarly, we'd read this rule as "whether or not testing a product is justified by the potential risk to public safety, the government cannot prohibit testing."

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

   80%
2. B

   Compatible3% picked this

   Governments should seek to determine when product safety testing is justified by the risk posed and should provide this information to companies

   The government in this story has seemingly determined for itself that product safety testing is not justified by the risk posed. Have they failed to provide this information to Quartzbrook? We have no idea. It seems likely that in denying Quartzbrook the right to test, they would have shared their reason why.

   3%
3. C

   Opposite11% picked this

   A government should not allow a company to perform unnecessary product safety tests if that company’s doing so will give consumers the impression

   This principle nicely justifies the government's action.

   11%
4. D

   Compatible2% picked this

   A government should not spend taxpayers’ money performing product safety tests if the risk posed by the products does not justify

   As soon as we read, "a government should not spend taxpayers' money performing product safety tests if ... ", just pause and ask yourself: was this government spending taxpayer's money performing product safety tests? No. They were actually refusing to let a company use its own money to perform a test. The only way the government could be violating this principle is if it were spending taxpayers' money on safety tests.

   2%
5. E

   Compatible4% picked this

   It is fair for a country’s government to require foreign companies to test the products they export to that country as long as it

   Violating this principle would mean that a government requires foreign companies to test products before it will allow them to be imported, but the government doesn't require domestic companies to do the same. In other words, the U.S. requires foreign beef companies to test their beef for disease X in order for it to be imported into the U.S., but it doesn't require U.S. beef companies to test their beef for disease X. Does that sound like what this government is doing? No. We were never told that this government requires foreign companies to test products. What's confusing is that in the stimulus we are hearing about other governments who do require foreign companies to test beef. But Quartzbrook's government, the one that our question stem cares about, doesn't have any such requirement for foreign companies (that we know of). So we can't say that Quartzbrook's government is violating this principle.

   4%