Self-study
If people refrained from being impolite to one another the condition of society would be greatly improved. ███ ███████ █████ ███ ██ ██████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████ ███████ ████ █████████ ██████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ██████ █████████ ████ ████ █████ ██████ ████ ████ ████████ ████ ████ █████████████
Argument Structure
The stimulus opens with context: if people stopped being impolite, society would improve. But then the author pivots. She concludes that society would not be better off if the government enacted laws requiring politeness. Why not? Because enforcing those laws would create even more problems than impoliteness itself does.
The first sentence is background context. It acknowledges that impoliteness is a real problem, but it doesn't play a role in the author's reasoning. The author's actual argument is contained in the second and third sentences: the conclusion (society wouldn't be better off with politeness laws) and the premise supporting it (enforcing those laws would create more problems than impoliteness does).
How do we know the second sentence is the conclusion and the third is the premise? The third sentence provides a reason for believing the second. The author thinks society wouldn't be better off from politeness laws because enforcing them would cause more problems than impoliteness. You can also test this by reversing the relationship: does it make sense to say "enforcing these laws would create more problems because society wouldn't be better off with them"? No, that doesn't work. The reasoning flows in one direction only.
The Role of the Referenced Claim
The claim we're asked about, that society would not be better off with government-mandated politeness laws, is the conclusion of the argument.
14.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ███████ █████ ███ ██ ██████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████ ███████ ████ █████████ ██████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ██████
a
It is the ██████████ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ █ ██████
This accurately describes the referenced claim. The claim that society wouldn't be better off with politeness laws is what the author is trying to prove, and the third sentence (enforcing such laws would create even more problems than impoliteness) is the evidence offered in support of it.
b
It is cited ██ ████████ ███ ███ ██████████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███████ ███████████
The referenced claim isn't evidence for anything. It's the other way around: the third sentence (about enforcement creating more problems) is evidence for the referenced claim. If you're thinking of the first sentence as the "overall conclusion," note that the first sentence is just context. The author isn't trying to prove that refraining from impoliteness would improve society. She simply grants that point before making her actual argument.
c
It is cited ██ ████████ ███ ███ █████████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████████ ███████ ███████████
Same issue as (B). The referenced claim isn't cited as evidence at all. It's the claim being supported, not a claim doing the supporting.
d
It is cited ██ ██ ████████████ ██ █ ██████████████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████
The referenced claim isn't an illustration of another claim. An illustration would be a specific example used to demonstrate a broader point. Here, the claim that society wouldn't benefit from politeness laws is the author's conclusion, supported by cost-benefit reasoning about the effects of enforcement.
e
It describes a ██████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ████████
The referenced claim isn't a phenomenon being explained. It's the conclusion of the argument. The author isn't observing that society wouldn't benefit and then trying to explain why. She's arguing that society wouldn't benefit, using the enforcement problems as her reason.