Government official: Although the determination of local residents to rebuild hiking trails recently devastated by a landslide indicates that they are strongly committed to their community, Conclusion the government should not assist them in rebuilding. ███ ██████ ██ ██████ █████ ██ █ ██████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████ ████████ ████ █████ █████ ███████ ██████ ██ ██████
The official claims that the government should not help rebuild certain hiking trails after a landslide, despite residents' determination to rebuild. In support, the official explains that there’s a high probability of future landslides in the area that could lead to injuries.
We need to bridge between the official's premise and conclusion, so first we have to find where the gap is we're bridging. The official establishes that rebuilding the trails would create a risk of injury, but doesn’t actually state this as a sufficient reason for the government to refrain from helping to rebuild. So there's the gap! To bridge it, we need a principle affirming that the government shouldn’t pursue a course of action that would put people at risk of injury.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████████ █████████
Residents should not ██ ███████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ███████ ████ ██ ███████████
The official doesn't say anything about whether residents should be allowed to rebuild the trails, so this principle is irrelevant. The official's point is that the government shouldn't help to rebuild in the first place, and this doesn't get us any closer to justifying that conclusion.
The determination of █████████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██████ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██████████ ███████ ███ ███ ████████
The residents have determination, so this principle would trigger... but would bridge to the opposite conclusion. This principle would suggest that the government should help rebuild the trail, but we're trying to justify the official's claim that the government should not help.
Government agencies should ███ ██████ ██████ ████ ████████ ██████ █████ ██████ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ █████ ██████████
In the contrapositive, if people are not committed, then the government shouldn't help. The conclusion here is correct, but the principle can't bridge to it because it doesn't trigger: the people are, in fact, committed.
The government should ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ █████████████ ████ █████ ████ ██ ███████ ███████
Rebuilding the trails would result in people using the trails, which we know would create a risk of serious injury. Based on these premises, this principle triggers, and bridges to the correct conclusion that the government should not help with rebuilding the trails. This is what justifies the official's argument.
Residents should be ███████████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ███ ███ ██ █████████ ███████ ██ ███████████
Although the area does have a history of landslides, this principle would lead to the wrong conclusion, that residents should be discouraged. The official’s conclusion only concerns whether the government should help to rebuild, but this principle doesn't help justify that.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic