Thanks for the question! So let’s recap the stimulus. We know that biotech companies think that voluntary guidelines are enough to make sure no harm happens when GMOs are released. But, says the author of this stimulus, we shouldn’t listen to them. As a conclusion, biotechnology companies should be required to have independent regulators in order to be able to sell newly created organisms.
Now we’re looking for a principle that will most help strengthen the conclusion. And it’ll be something to strengthen the conclusion that we shouldn’t listen to the biotech companies, that there should be regulatory oversight. Well, let’s take a look at (B), which tells us that people who engage in an activity and have a financial stake shouldn’t be the only regulators of that activity. If this is true, then there should be independent regulators for biotech companies. After all, we know that they have a financial stake in engaging in their activities (since they’re selling these newly created organisms). So based on this principle, they shouldn’t be the only ones to regulate; there should be other regulators. And so (B) gets us to the conclusion, and is the correct answer choice.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
MayaMAugust 11, 2022
I'm confused as to why this question isn't considered to be a strengthen with sufficient premise question, as "if accepted" suggest sufficient?
Emil-KunkinAugust 14, 2022
Hi MayaM,
Principle strengthen questions are a little weird, to me they sit between true strengthen and strengthen with sufficient questions. Note, however, that on a strengthen with sufficient question, we would likely be asked which one "justifies" rather than "most strongly justifies."
I think that the "if accepted" is pretty common on normal strengthen questions. This is just saying that we are to assume that the principles/additional facts are true. For a normal strengthen or strengthen with sufficient question, it would likely be phrased like "which of the following, if true..."
