Self-paced
Columnist: A government-owned water utility has received approval to collect an additional charge on water bills and to use that additional revenue to build a dam. █ ██████ ██ ███ ███████████ ███ ████████ ███ ████████ ███ ███ ███ ███████ ████████ ███ █████ █████ ████ █████ █████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ████ ████████ ██ █████████████
Argument Summary And Rule Anticipation
Let’s start with the conclusion, which features some referential phrasing: “That proposal is unacceptable.” This bit alone gives us enough to anticipate the rest of this question’s structure: the stimulus is gonna describe the situation we’re in, then someone’s gonna make a proposal, and then for the Columnist’s conclusion to make sense, we’ll need a general principle that says “There’s [something about our situation] that makes it unacceptable to [do the stuff you’re proposing].”
Okay then, let’s pin down the situation and the proposal:
Situation: Our water utility got approval to levy a tax to fund a dam.
Proposal: Let’s not build a dam. Let’s use the money to build roads instead.
Anticipating the rule means looking at the situation and the proposal and plucking out some features to plop into the template from earlier. For example:
It’s unacceptable to [use money for roads] when we [got that money to build a dam].
That’s a pretty good one. I mean, it’s kinda the one. In the real world, it’s generally bad to raise money for one purpose and then use that money for a different purpose.
But here are a few others just to reinforce the formula:
It’s unacceptable to [build roads] [before building a dam].
It’s unacceptable to [not build a dam] if [you get approval to build a dam].
Those two are fine, they just match our real world intuitions less well.
Note: As you evaluate the stimulus, you should also pick up on the value judgment leap across the is-ought gap. You can’t jump from descriptive premises about how things are to normative conclusions about how things ought to be. In a PSAr question, this means our principle will take us from one side to the other – something like “When things [are] this way, they [ought to be] that way.” This dynamic turns out not to be a difference-maker in this particular question, because every answer choice provides a bridging principle. (Verify that for yourself! It’s good practice!)
4.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████████ ████████ ██ █████████████
a
Customers of a ███████ ████ █ █████ ██ ████ ███ ███ █████ ████ ███ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ █████
Intuitively (A) is pretty close to the principle we want – don’t go sneak off and use our tax money for something else.
But knowledge isn’t actually the key here. There’s no indication in the fact pattern that this legislator plans to reallocate the funds in secret.
For the proposal to be unacceptable on these facts alone, building these roads needs to be bad even if we inform the public of our plans.
b
Money designated for ████████ ████ ███████ ██ ██████ █████████ ██████ ███ ██ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ███████ ████ ████ ███████ ██ █ ██████████
This principle is unmoored from the facts in the stimulus because we’re given no indication of how many people benefit from each project. Do dams benefit everyone? Do roads only benefit some people? Both these questions are debatable. Without more information from the stimulus, it’s not reasonable for us to assume both answers are a firm yes.
c
An additional charge ██ █████ █████ ██████ ███ ██ ████ ██ ████ █ ███████ ████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ██████████ ███
This principle is unmoored from the facts in the stimulus because we’re given no indication of how the utility's customers feel. If the stimulus included a poll that established disapproval we’d be in business. Without that information, though, it’s unreasonable for us to assume people disapprove of building roads.
d
An additional charge ██ █████ █████ ██████ ███ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ████████████
(D) provides a potential reason why collecting an additional charge might be unacceptable. But the Columnist and the legislator disagree on how to spend the money – one step later in the process.
And anyway,
e
A water utility ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ██████ ███ █████ █████████ ██ ████ ███ █████████████ █████████████
First let’s translate this unless claim into a simple “if, then” by negating the sufficient condition:
If you’re not gonna use the money for water-related stuff, you shouldn’t collect the money.
This fits cleanly into the template we established earlier. Here’s the one-for-one:
Template: There’s [something about our situation] that makes it unacceptable to [do the stuff you’re proposing].
(E): You’re not using the money for water-related stuff, so it’s unacceptable to collect an additional charge on water bills.