Let’s break this one down together. The question stem asks:
Which one of the following is a principal that, if accepted, could enable the conclusion to be properly drawn?
So, with this kind of question stem, we’re looking for a strengthen with sufficient assumption. Here a sufficient assumption will get you what you need by allowing the conclusion (Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and nonsmokers on the premises of privately owned businesses is an intrusion into the private sector that cannot be justified.) to be properly drawn.
Our premises are:
Sentence 2 (The fact that studies indicate that nonsmokers might be harmed by inhaling the smoke from others’ cigarettes is not the main issue.) Sentence 3 (Rather, the main issue concerns the government’s violation of the right of private businesses to determine their own policies and rules.)
Given as support for the conclusion that: Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and nonsmokers on the premises of privately owned businesses is an intrusion into the private sector that cannot be justified.
So, our evidence talks about the main issue, which is violation of the right of private businesses. It explains that the main issue is not the potential harm to nonsmokers.
In predicting this answer choice, I would look for something that says: The right of the private business trumps the protection of the individuals’ safety, in this case the nonsmokers, when justifying laws. An answer choice like this will allow us to then conclude that legislation that protects the individual nonsmokers and violates the right of the private business (like our conclusion states) is unjustified (again, because private business trumps the individual).
Answer choice C describes this scenario, so that’s our winner! It matches our prediction pretty well. Now, let’s take a look at the wrong answers and see where they went awry.
A) This doesn’t get us what we want. We want something that says even though individuals might be harmed, if the law violates the rights of private businesses, it is unjustified. B) This is the opposite of what we are trying to prove. Remember, we are trying to prove that the legislation is unjustified. C) Correct D) This one is irrelevant to what’s being concluded in our stimulus. E) Again, successful compromise is not relevant to justifying our conclusion. We are looking for a justification that puts rights of private business over duties to the safety of individuals, in order to properly draw the conclusion that the current legislation is unjustified.
