Self-paced
Support Biotechnology companies say that voluntary guidelines for their industry are sufficient to ensure that no harm will result when a genetically altered organism is released into the environment. ██ ██ ████████ ████████ ██ ████ ██ ██████████ ████ █████████ ██ ███████████ ███████ █████████ ████ █████ ████████ ████ ███ ██ ████████ ██████████ █ █████████████ ███████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ██ ███████████ ██████████ █████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ███ █████████████ ████████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ████ █████ ███████ ██████████
Structure: Counter-Argument
The stimulus starts with the biotechnology companies' claim that "voluntary guidelines" alone will ensure that no harm comes from releasing genetically altered organisms into the environment. The author rejects the claim, stating that it is "foolish" to trust these companies, since they are the ones producing the genetically altered organisms. So the author concludes that before selling genetically altered organisms, biotechnology companies should be required to apply to an "independent regulatory board" featuring scientists from outside the industry.
Analysis: Pseudo-Sufficient Assumption (Rule)
Since we're looking for a principle that will justify the reasoning above, it's important to make sure we understand the premise-conclusion structure of the argument. Basically, the author is saying that if an industry is producing products with the potential to cause harm, that industry should be regulated externally rather than by the companies themselves. An answer choice that rephrases that sufficient assumption will be a principle justifying the author's reasoning.
1.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ █████████ ████ ████████ █████████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██████
a
Voluntary guidelines are ██████████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ████ ████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ████████████
Incorrect. The author isn't making the case that voluntary guidelines are "sufficient" in this scenario — he's saying the opposite. And while we don't know how much danger is posed to the environment by these genetically altered organisms, we can't assume that they pose "little" danger to the environment. So (A) doesn't help justify the reasoning in the argument.
b
People who engage ██ ██ ████████ ███ ████ █ █████████ █████ ██ ████ ████████ ██████ ███ ██ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ████ █████████
Correct. This effectively rephrases the sufficient assumption from our analysis. The companies actually producing these genetically altered organisms certainly count as people engaging in this activity and with a financial stake in that activity. So this principle supports the conclusion that these companies should be subject to external regulation — i.e., these companies should not be the sole regulators of their activity.
c
Methods that result ██ ████ ██ ███ ███████████ ████ █████████ ██ ████ ██ █████ ██ █████ ████ ███████ █████
Incorrect. The stimulus isn't talking about two sets of "methods" that both cause harm to the environment.
d
A company is █████████ ██ ██████ ███ █████████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ███ █████ █████████████ ███████
Incorrect. This doesn't fit the premise-conclusion structure we identified in our analysis, and (if anything) the argument in the stimulus seems to assume that companies do have some obligation to ensure the environmental safety of their products.
e
Issues of environmental ██████████ ███ ██ █████████ ████ ████ ██████ ███ ██ ████ ██ ██████████ ████████
Incorrect. The stimulus doesn't talk about having non-scientists monitor environmental protection issues. In fact, the only people we know are on the independent regulatory board proposed by the author are scientists.