reply2spg wrote:
The purpose of the proposed law requiring a doctor's prescription for obtaining hypodermic needles is to lower the incidence of drug-related deaths, both accidental and intentional, involving hypodermic needles. But even knitting needles can be lethal if they fall into the wrong hands; yet everyone would agree that imposing legal restrictions on obtaining knitting needles would be preposterous. Hence the proposed law involving hypodermic makes no sense and should not be enacted.
Which of the following, if true, would provide most support for the
argument above?
(A) Knitting needles have been known to cause injury
and death.
(B) The benefits of hypodermic needles outweigh those
of knitting needles.
(C) The proposed law would not deter the sort of activity
known to result in drug-related deaths.
(D) The proposed law could not be effectively enforced.
(E) Knitting needles are not readily available to anybody
who wants to obtain them.
A
1. the argument focuses on WHY the proposed law makes no sense and should not be enacted rather than compares the benifits of kinds of needles, so B is
IRRELEVANT,
B out2. C very subtle, but
C out. Although the law WOULD NOT deter many activities that result in deaths, C CANNOT suggest that the law WOULD deter knitting needles (which is assumed to be the cause of drug-related deaths).
3. The effectiveness of the law does not mean that the law making no sense, so D cannot help explain why the law should not be enacted. D out
4. E suggests that knitting needles available to amost every persons. That is, the proposed law must make sense. E
weakens rather than strenthens the argument, E out
A is the best