Q21 - No occupation should be subject to

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Principle Example (Inference/Most Strongly Supported)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Principle: If incompetence doesn't risk human health/safety, then a job shouldn't be subject to a licensing requirement.

Answer Anticipation:
The correct answer will point out a profession where incompetence isn't dangerous and conclude that it shouldn't be licensed. I'm also expecting incorrect answers that conclude a profession should be licensed - there's nothing sufficient in the principle to justify that!

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Degree. While some of the duties don't impact safety, other do.

(B) Boom goes the dynamite (not the best phrase for this question - dynamite operators should absolutely be licensed). Interior decorators aren't dangerous, and so they should not be regulated. The "no realistic circumstances" is alright (even though they may end up in unrealistic circumstances) because the principle states "normally carried out".

(C) We can't reach a conclusion about professions that should be licensed.

(D) We can't reach a conclusion about professions that should be licensed.

(E) We can't reach a conclusion about professions that should be licensed.

Takeaway/Pattern:
For Principle Example (Inference) questions, identify what conclusions you can validly reach (ones that align with the necessary condition). Those are the only answers in play!

#officialexplanation

[MarcF744]

I am quite confused on why we cant take the contrapositive of the principle for this one, which would read "If incompetence does not pose a threat, then you do not need a license".

Can someone provide clarity on this please?

I also think I am confused in general on when we can apply contrapositives.

[nhbrown]

How does D not work here?

Hair stylists regularly carry out a task (using substances) that pose a threat to human health if handled with incompetence (improperly). Should they not be subject to a licensing requirement based off the principle?

[TedA670]

My take on this Q:

The premise states:
If not threat to human health / safety due to incompetence ---> Should not be subject to licensing

The contrapositive is:
If subject to licensing ---> must be a threat to human health / safety due to incompetence

So answer (D) would be correct if phrased like:
"Hair stylists are subjected to licensing, so they must use substances that can pose a threat to human health if handled improperly"

But it makes a mistaken reversal hence is incorrect. Notice the statements don't mention what to do if incompetence does pose a threat - they just state that when there isn't the threat of incompetence then there shouldn't be licensing. When there is threat of incompetence, maybe there is licensing or maybe there isn't (you can't tell from what's been stated).

[RichardK852]

Isn't the argument here something like the following?

~ (incompetence --> threat) --> ~ licensing

Therefore I can understand why (B) is right.


If that is the case, the contrapositive would be

licensing --> (incompetence --> threat)

Therefore, since I believe that (C), (D), (E) would all be notated as (incompetence --> threat) --> licensing, (C), (D), (E) all cannot be the answer.

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes, that's correct.

In the #officialexplanation, Matt eliminated C/D/E for exactly that reason:

(C) We can't reach a conclusion about professions that should be licensed.
(D) We can't reach a conclusion about professions that should be licensed.
(E) We can't reach a conclusion about professions that should be licensed.


And in that explanation, before he even got to the answers, he anticipated that he would be able to make some quick eliminations based on the fact that the rule only allows us to say when there SHOULDN'T be a licensing requirement.

Answer Anticipation:
The correct answer will point out a profession where incompetence isn't dangerous and conclude that it shouldn't be licensed. I'm also expecting incorrect answers that conclude a profession should be licensed - there's nothing sufficient in the principle to justify that!