Self-study
Park ranger: Support It is unfair to cite people for fishing in the newly restricted areas. ████ ████████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ████████████ █████ ████ ████ ██ ██ ███ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ █████ ███████ ████ ███ ███ ████ ████████ ██ █████ █████ ██ ████ ████ █ ████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███ ███ █████████████ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ████ ████ █████ █ ██████ ███████ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ██████████ ██████
Summary
The author concludes that if we have not yet made real efforts to publicize the new restrictions on fishing, then, for the people who violate those restrictions, we shouldn’t do any more than give a simple warning against fishing in restricted areas.
Why does the author believe this?
Because it’s unfair to give a citation to people fishing in the newly restricted areas.
What makes it unfair?
Because the people are probably unaware of the changes in fishing restrictions.
Why should we think the people are not aware?
Because many people who are supposed to enforce the changes haven’t been informed about those changes.
Notable Assumptions
There are a lot of gaps in the reasoning. But ultimately we want to prove that, for people who violate the new fishing restrictions, we shouldn’t do any more than give a simple warning — in other words, we should NOT give a citation.
The core of the reasoning to support that conclusion is that people probably aren’t aware of the new restrictions.
Here’s one principle that would get us from the premises to the conclusion:
If people are probably not aware of restrictions, and we haven’t made a real effort to publicize the restrictions, then we shouldn’t give citations to people who violate those restrictions.
Let’s keep an open mind, because the correct answer doesn’t have to sound exactly like the example principle above.
16.
Which one of the following ██ █ █████████ █████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ████████ █████████
a
People should not ██ █████ ███ █████████ ████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ████████
Helps connect the support to the conclusion. According to (A), people who aren’t aware of a law (such as the new fishing restrictions) shouldn’t be cited for violating laws about which they’re unaware. The support establishes that people are probably unaware of the new fishing restrictions. So (A) supports the conclusion that we shouldn’t cite people who violate the restrictions.
b
Regulations regarding park ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ███████████
Leads to wrong conclusion. (B) allows us to conclude that a park should widely publicize regulations. But we’re trying to conclude that people shouldn’t be given a citation or that they shouldn’t be given more than a warning. The conclusion concerns what we should do to violators, not what we should do regarding publicity.
c
The public should ███ ██ ████████ ██ ████ ████ █████ ███ ███ ████ ███ ███ ███████████ █████████ ███
Leads to wrong conclusion. (C) allows us to reach a conclusion that the public should not be expected to know something. But we’re trying to reach the conclusion that we shouldn’t give violators a citation. In theory, someone can believe that violators should be given a citation despite their lack of knowledge. We want to help eliminate that possibility and connect lack of knowledge to why they shouldn’t be cited.
d
People who fish ██ █ ██████ ████ ██████ ████ █████ ██████ ██ ██ █████ █████ ██ ███ ████████████ ████ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ █████
Leads to wrong conclusion. (D) allows us to conclude that people who fish should try to be aware of fishing restrictions. But we’re trying to conclude that violators shouldn’t be given a citation.
e
People who are ██████ ██ ███ ███ ██ █████████ █ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ █████ ████ ███ ████ ███ █████ ██ █████
Leads to wrong conclusion. (E) allows us to conclude that certain people should be allowed to explain why they think a law doesn’t apply to them. But we’re trying to conclude that violators shouldn’t be given a citation.