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 determination of █████████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██████ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██████████ ███████ ███ ███ ████████
Government agencies should ███ ██████ ██████ ████ ████████ ██████ █████ ██████ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ █████ ██████████
The government should ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ █████████████ ████ █████ ████ ██ ███████ ███████
Residents should be ███████████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ███ ███ ██ █████████ ███████ ██ ███████████