Q8 - Politician: Some cities have reversed the decay

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Principle Support (Strengthen/Sufficient)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Situation: A certain method of revitalizing areas helped the rich owners and hurt the long-term residents who it was intended to help.
Judgment: The legislation shouldn't be commended.

Answer Anticipation:
If an action has outcomes that cut against the intended ones, it shouldn't be commended.

Correct answer:
(A)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) While not sufficient to get to the conclusion, the politician is absolutely relying on an analysis of outcomes rather than just intentions in evaluating the legislation. I'd leave this on my first pass and select it after ruling out the rest.

(B) Out of scope. There is nothing to indicate that the wealthy influenced the process; just that they unintentionally benefited from it.

(C) Out of scope. While the benefits aren't equally flowing to all groups, there's no reason to think these laws/regulations are being applied unequally.

(D) Out of scope. This legislation is to the benfit of the well-to-do professionals.

(E) Out of scope/opposite. This answer is out of scope because the argument is about intention, outcome, and commendation, while this answer is about benefit to society (the politician could believe that it shouldn't be commended even if it benefited everyone unless it had that intention). However, if anything, this cuts against the politician's anti-Robin Hood argument.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Principle Support questions tend to have answers that are sufficient to get to the judgment in the conclusion, but they don't have to get you all the way there.

#officialexplanation

[LolaC289]

(D) may be tempting because it seems like the legislation is to the professionals' benefit but not to the long-term residents' benefit. However, what (D) is saying is the legislation is not to ANYONE's benefit, which means it is beneficial to NONE. Note to distinguish it from not to EVERYONE's benefit.

[JakeA559]

I am having trouble with d) Legislation that is not to anyone's benefit, doesnt that mean that a legislation that doesnt benefit SOMEONE should not be commended?

Also do you have any tips for dealing with double negatives like this one?