PT155 S1 Q16 ExplanationPark ranger: It is unfair

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Correct76% picked this

   People should not be cited for violating laws of which they

   Why this is right

   Yes, this sounds like something our fisherman would say. Since he wasn't aware of the new rules, he shouldn't be cited for violations. The author was sympathetic to this view. As a conditional, this answer would look like this: If X violates a law of → X should not which X is unaware be cited The trigger matches the evidence, since the author says that people fishing in the newly restricted areas "probably are unaware of the changes". And the outcome supports the conclusion, "we should do no more than a simple warning = we should not issue a citation".

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

   76%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match7% picked this

   Regulations regarding park use should be

   This would help us support a conclusion saying, "Therefore, we should make a real effort to publicize the new restrictions". But the conclusion we need to support is, "So long as we haven't publicized the new restrictions, we should do no more than issue simple warnings."

   7%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match16% picked this

   The public should not be expected to know more about the law than any law

   This sounds like something the author does believe. We could probably call this a Necessary Assumption. But it's not the strongest support for the conclusion, of the available answers, because it has nothing to do with whether we issue warnings vs. citations. This answer would help support a conclusion that's says, "Thus, we shouldn't expect the public to know X". This answer feels like it supports the Intermediate Conclusion of "They probably are unaware of the changes in regulations". It doesn't support language like "we should do no more than issue simple warnings". And the trigger is actually weird, if we look at it conditionally: any law enforcement → shouldn't expect officer doesn't know X public to know X

   16%
4. D

   Unrelated to Goal1% picked this

   People who fish in a public park should make every effort to be fully aware of the restrictions that

   This is a principle that would allow to conclude something about how the public should behave. We're trying to find a principle that tells us something about how park rangers should behave (should / shouldn't they issue simple warnings or citations to people who break the new rules).

   1%
5. E

   Weak Conclusion Match0% picked this

   People who are caught in the act of violating a law should be afforded the opportunity to explain why they think that

   One big red flag here is that the trigger to this rule doesn't hit on any of the premise ideas, "the public is probably unaware / many enforcement agents haven't been informed yet". It just says, If X is caught → X should be allowed violating a law to explain why they think the law doesn't apply to them The conclusion is about whether to cite the person violating the law or whether to do no more than issue a simple warning. It has nothing to do with whether or not the violator is given a chance to explain why they are exempt from the law. In this story, violators aren't actually arguing the law doesn't apply to them. They're just saying to the park ranger, "Whoa -- I didn't know that new restriction applied to me. I don't think that a citation is a fair punishment for a rule I had no way of knowing I was breaking."

   0%