Self-study
Physician: Support A tax on saturated fat, which was intended to reduce consumption of unhealthy foods, has been repealed after having been in effect for only seven months. ███ ███ ███ ██████████ ██████ ████ ███████████ ███ ██████████ █████████████ ███████████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ███████████ █████████ ██ ████████ ███████ ██████ ███ ████████ ████████████ ███ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ████████ ██ █████
Summary
The author concludes that the tax on saturated fat should not have been repealed so soon.
Why?
Because it was in effect for only seven months before it was repealed.
Notable Assumptions
Why isn’t seven months enough to evaluate whether a tax is successful? We want a principle helping to connect the fact that it was in effect for only seven months to the judgment that it should not have been repealed so soon. For example:
If a tax has been in effect for only seven months, then it should not be repealed yet, even if it seems to have some undesirable consequences.
2.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ████
a
A tax on █████████ █████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ████ ██ ██ ███ ██ █████ ████ █ ████ ██████ ██ █████████ ████ ██ ████ ████████ ███████ ████████ ███████
(A) would allow us to reach a conclusion that a tax should NOT be implemented. But it doesn’t relate to whether a tax that is already implemented should be repealed.
b
It is not ████████ ██ ██████████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ █ ███ ████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ██████ █████ ███ ███ ███ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ██ █████ ███ █████
(B), restated, asserts that if a tax intended to affect people’s health hasn’t been in effect for at least one year, then it’s impossible to adequately gauge the impact of it. We know the tax was intended to reduce consumption of healthy foods. We also know that it was in effect for less than one year. So (B) allows us to infer that it’s impossible to adequately gauge the impact of the tax. That supports the judgment that we should have waited to repeal it.
c
Before any law ████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ██████ ██ ████████████ ███ ███████████ ████████ ████████████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███████████
(C) concerns what’s required before we should implement a law. But it doesn’t relate to whether a law that is already implemented should be repealed.
d
A law intended ██ ███████ ████████ ██████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ ██ ██ █████ ████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ ███ ████
(D) allows us to reach a conclusion that a law SHOULD be repealed. But we’re trying to support a judgment that a law should NOT have been repealed.
e
A tax on █████████ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ █████ █████ ████ ███ ██████ ████████ ██ ██ ███ ████ ██████████
(E) allows us to suport a conclusion that a tax should NOT be applied to something. But we’re trying to support a judgment that a tax that was already applied should have been kept in place.