Quartzbrook Farms wanted to test all of its cattle for a rare disease so it could export beef to a country that requi...

shunhe on October 6, 2020

Hi @jingjingxiao11111@gmail.com,

Thanks for the question! Let’s take a look at what the stimulus is telling us. We’re told that QF wants to test all its cows for a rare disease so it can export beef to some country that needs the testing. But the government of QF’s country banned testing the cows, saying there’s no scientific evidence that the risk posed by the disease justifies such testing, and that the public could be tricked into thinking the testing was scientifically warranted if QF did the tests.

So now we’re asked for a principle that the government’s testing ban is most at odds with. In essence, this is a weaken/principle question. We can think of this as looking for a principle that would weaken this argument.

Now take a look at (A), which tells us that governments can rightfully require product testing deemed necessary to protect public safety but cannot rightfully prohibit testing even if such testing is not justified by the risk involved. Well, that seems pretty counter to what the stimulus is saying. Remember, in the stimulus, the government says “no testing” because it’s risky. But that would run counter to this principle, which says that the government can’t prohibit testing, even if there are risks! So (A) is the correct answer choice here.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.