Economist: Government intervention in the free market in pursuit of socially desirable goals can affect supply and demand, thereby distorting prices. The ethics of such intervention is comparable to that of administering medicines. Most medicines have harmful as well as beneficial effects, so the use of a type of medicine is ethically justified only when its nonuse would be significantly more harmful than its use. Similarly, government intervention in the free market is justified only when it _______.
Summary
The author draws an analogy between the ethics of administering medicine and the ethics of government intervention. Since most medicines have both harmful and beneficial effects, using a medicine is justified only when not using it would cause a lot more harm than using it. Similarly, since government intervention in the free market for the purpose of social engineering can distort prices, such intervention is justified only when failure to intervene causes a lot more harm than the intervention.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
We’re looking to fill in the concerning what is required in order for government intervention in the free market to be justified. Based on the analogy to medicine, we can conclude that government intervention is justified only when the failure to intervene is a lot more harmful than intervention.
A
would likely be approved of by the majority of the affected participants
Unsupported. The analogy doesn’t condition the ethical use of medicine on approval, so it doesn’t make sense to complete the analogy with a comment on approval.
B
has been shown to have few if any significantly harmful effects
Unsupported. The analogy conditions the ethical use of medicine on a comparison between using medicine vs. not using the medicine. So it doesn’t make sense to complete the analogy with a comment that doesn’t involve a comparison between intervention and not having intervention.
C
is believed unlikely to significantly exacerbate any existing problems
Unsupported. The analogy conditions the ethical use of medicine on a comparison between using medicine vs. not using the medicine. So it doesn’t make sense to complete the analogy with a comment that doesn’t involve a comparison between intervention and not having intervention.
D
would do less damage than would result from the government’s not intervening
Strongly supported. Use of medicine is ethical only when not using it is more harmful than using it. Similarly, intervention is ethical only when not intervening is more harmful than intervening.
E
provides a solution to some otherwise insoluble problem
Unsupported. The analogy does not condition the ethical use of medicine on the provision of a solution. The requirement involve comparing the harm of using medicine vs. not using it. So it doesn’t make sense to complete the analogy with a comment on solutions.
A
illicitly infers a cause from a correlation
B
relies on a sample that is unlikely to be representative of the group as a whole
C
confuses a condition that is necessary for a phenomenon to occur with a condition that is sufficient for that phenomenon to occur
D
takes for granted that there are only two possible alternative explanations of a phenomenon
E
draws a conclusion about the intentions of a group of people based solely on data about the consequences of their behavior
Some paleontologists have suggested that Apatosaurus, a huge dinosaur, was able to gallop. This, however, is unlikely, because galloping would probably have broken Apatosaurus’s legs. Experiments with modern bones show how much strain they can withstand before breaking. By taking into account the diameter and density of Apatosaurus leg bones, it is possible to calculate that those bones could not have withstood the strains of galloping.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Paleontologists who believe that Apatosaurus could gallop are probably wrong. Experiments with modern bones show that Apatosaurus’s leg bones could not have withstood the strains of galloping. These experiments show that galloping would probably have broken Apatosaurus’s legs. Therefore, it is unlikely that Apatosaurus galloped.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s opinion that some paleontologists are likely wrong in their belief that Apatosaurus could gallop.
A
Galloping would probably have broken the legs of Apatosaurus.
This is a sub-conclusion of the argument, not the main conclusion. The claim that galloping would likely have broken Apatosaurus’s legs supports the main conclusion that the paleontologists are probably incorrect in hypothesizing that Apatosaurus could gallop.
B
It is possible to calculate that Apatosaurus leg bones could not have withstood the strain of galloping.
This is an unstated premise—an assumption—that supports the argument’s sub-conclusion. Modern bone experiments only support the claim that Apatosaurus’s legs would have broken from galloping if it’s possible to calculate whether Apatosaurus’s leg bones could withstand the strain.
C
The claim of paleontologists that Apatosaurus was able to gallop is likely to be incorrect.
This correctly captures the stimulus’s main conclusion. The stimulus concludes that the claim made by some paleontologists that Apatosaurus could gallop is “unlikely,” or as (C) states, “likely to be incorrect.”
D
If galloping would have broken the legs of Apatosaurus, then Apatosaurus was probably unable to gallop.
This is an unstated premise supporting the main conclusion. The author concludes that Apatosaurus probably couldn’t gallop because galloping would likely have broken its legs. This conclusion assumes that Apatosaurus wouldn’t have galloped if doing so would have broken its legs.
E
Modern bones are quite similar in structure and physical properties to the bones of Apatosaurus.
This is an unstated premise, which supports the stimulus’s sub-conclusion that galloping would likely have broken Apatosaurus’s legs. The experiments with modern bones support this sub-conclusion because the stimulus assumes that modern bones are similar to those of Apatosaurus.
A
It is the conclusion of the argument.
B
It provides support for the conclusion of the argument.
C
It is a claim that the argument is directed against.
D
It qualifies the conclusion of the argument.
E
It illustrates a principle that underlies the argument.
A
The genetic differences between the shrimp populations are much less significant than those between shrimp and any other marine species.
B
The individual shrimp within a given population at any given Indonesian coral reef differ from one another genetically, even though there is widespread interbreeding within any such population.
C
Before breeding, shrimp of the species examined migrate back to the coral reef at which they were hatched.
D
Most shrimp hatched at a given Indonesian coral reef are no longer present at that coral reef upon becoming old enough to breed.
E
Ocean currents probably carry many of the baby shrimp hatched at a given Indonesian coral reef out into the open ocean rather than to another coral reef.
A
A given volume of halophytes is significantly different in nutritional value for animal forage from the same volume of conventional forage crops.
B
Some halophytes not only tolerate seawater but require salt in order to thrive.
C
Large research expenditures are needed to develop the strains of halophytes best suited for agricultural purposes.
D
Costs other than the costs of irrigation are different for halophytes grown by means of seawater irrigation than for conventional crops.
E
Pumping water for irrigation is proportionally one of the largest costs involved in growing, harvesting, and distributing any forage crop for animals.