Q2 - Physician: A tax on saturated fat, which was intended

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Principle Support

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: The tax shouldn't have been repealed so soon.
Evidence: The tax on saturated fat was intended to reduce consumption of unhealthy foods. Even though it was having some bad unintended consequences, it was only in effect for seven months.

Answer Anticipation:
Picking up on the connection between "shouldn't have been repealed SO SOON" and "in effect for ONLY seven months" is central to the argument. The author thinks seven months is not enough for this well-intended tax to get through its growing pains.

If we're predicting an "if/then" rule, it would sound like "If it's only been in effect for seven months, you shouldn't repeal it yet".

If we're predicting a "should" rule, it would sound like "You shouldn't quickly repeal a bill just because of early, unanticipated difficulties".

If we were predicting a "rank the competing concerns" rule, it would sound like "the ultimate goal of reducing consumption of unhealthy foods is more important than the initial difficulties caused by the tax".

Correct Answer:
E

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This rule is about whether or not a tax should be implemented. We need a rule about whether or not we should have REPEALED a tax (that already had been implemented).

(B) Maybe! How does this rule apply to the fat tax? It says that "we can't adequately gauge the impact of a tax like this yet". That strengthens the idea that we shouldn't have repealed it to soon. (Ultimately, this is our best answer)

(C) This is a rule about what we should do before we implement a law. We need a rule about whether or not we should repeal a law that has already been implemented.

(D) This rule would help us prove the opposite of our conclusion. It says "If most people are evading a law, then the law should be repealed". This doesn't give us a condition under which we should NOT repeal something.

(E) This is a rule about what foods a tax should be applied to, not about whether we should repeal an already-enacted tax.

Takeaway/Pattern: This was less of a traditional "bridge idea" Principle-Support correct answer, more of a "Strengthen the argument" correct answer. Even though most Principle-Support correct answers are written in a "IF premise, THEN conclusion" style, we need to be receptive to answers that are merely strengtheners. For each answer choice, we can ask ourselves, "DOES this apply to our current case? (the fat tax) DOES this help me to argue the conclusion? (that we should NOT repeal a tax so soon)"

#officialexplanation

[MichaelM881]

Just a helpful heads-up: the correct answer mistakenly lists E despite the explanation indicating it's B.

[PretzelL30]

Just a helpful heads-up: the correct answer mistakenly lists E despite the explanation indicating it's B.

Oh that Patrick!