Q19 - Business owner: Around noon in one section of the city

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Principle-Support

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: The bill should be rejected.
Evidence: The bill is intended to address the food truck logjam (limits parking and increases congestion), so it forbids food trucks to park at meters in commercial areas. However, most areas of the city have little congestion and plenty of parking.

Answer Anticipation:
The author is assuming that the commercial areas being restricted by the bill affect these "low congestion / plenty of parking" areas.

But since this is a Principle-Support question, we should mainly be focused on getting from the big Premise concept to the "judgy" language in the Conclusion. Here, we need a law that will help us justify that we "should reject" this bill. Any answer that isn't a rule or rule of thumb that lets us conclude "we should reject this bill" is worthless. The big premise concept is that the bill would not be applicable to most areas of the city.

So, we could use something like, "If a bill is intended to target concerns that are inapplicable to most areas of the city, then that bill should be rejected."

Correct Answer:
D

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This principle lets you conclude "a business shouldn't be allowed to do ____". We need a law that lets us conclude "we should reject this bill".

(B) This principle would weaken the author's argument. The author is saying "Don't enact this bill, since the bill only exists in one part of the city."

(C) The core had nothing about whether the problem has / hasn't been studied. Otherwise, the rule IS at least set up to conclude "do not implement this solution".

(D) YES! This lets us conclude that "a law should NOT be used for ____ " (i.e. we should reject this law). The bill would disadvantage a type of business (food trucks) to solve a problem that doesn't affect most areas of the city (that was the author's premise), so this rule tells us we should reject the current bill.

(E) This is close, because it would let us conclude "we should not implement this policy". But nothing in the argument core discussed the idea that this bill would aggravate a certain problem.

Takeaway/Pattern: Keeping in mind our Conclusion Shortcut (only consider rules that allow you to derive the type of idea being derived in the Conclusion), we can get rid of (A) and (B). Making sure the trigger side of our rule matches the premise(s) from our argument core allows us to find (D) and eliminate (C) and (E).

#officialexplanation

[AvaM806]

To be honest I still don't understand why the correct answer is D...In general, I am new here and so far I only make a website for my business. I make handmade jewelry and I was advised to publish my services on best offers San Diego first, as this is a very visited website from which I can start promoting my business. This will help me cooperate with local clients. These are my immediate plans. However, if you have something else to offer, I will be happy to listen to all your advice! Thanks in advance.

[JaysonR265]

The question about the new bill is very confusing. On one hand, I can see how it could address the traffic congestion. However, what are the food trucks supposed to do? They clearly park there because that’s where they get the best business. It’s not like IT help desk outsourcing where you can operate from almost anywhere you have an internet connection. Food trucks rely on foot traffic and regular customers. If they move, they’ll need to re-establish their clientele. Hopefully this would be a quick process, but there are no guarantees. In the interim, how many of these food trucks would go under?