No occupation should be subject to a licensing requirement unless

Question

No occupation should be subject to a licensing requirement unless incompetence in the performance of tasks normally carried out within that occupation poses a plausible threat to human health or safety.

The principle stated above, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in which one of the following arguments?

(A) Because some of the duties that police officers carry out have no connection to human health or safety, police officers should not be subject to a licensing
requirement.

(B) Because there are no realistic circumstances in which poor work by an interior designer poses a danger to human beings, interior designers should not be subject to a licensing requirement.

(C) Because hospital administrators routinely make decisions that affect the health of hundreds of people, hospital administrators should be subject to a licensing requirement.

(D) Because hair stylists regularly use substances that can pose a threat to human health if handled improperly, hair stylists should be subject to a licensing requirement.

(E) Because tattoo artists who do not maintain strict sanitation pose a serious threat to human health, tattoo artists should be subject to a licensing requirement.

Apoorva800 · Answer

Hello!

I am stuck between Options B and D.

Since Option D mentions a case where incompetence to carry out regular duties poses plausible threat to human health, why can't option D be the answer?

nishantswaft · Answer

Hey! Option D is incorrect because the argument says that " incompetence in the performance of tasks normally carried out within that occupation" whereas in D it is given to us "if handled improperly". By using this phrase the option makes it difficult to gauge how normal is improper handling by hair stylists.

If it's very normal.. we have a good option but if it's rare then we can't apply this principle.

If it's very normal.. we have a good option but if it's rare then we can't apply this principle.

tommychudw · Answer

Curious on your train of thought. How would you reconcile "hair stylists  regularly  use substances" that comes before "if handled improperly"?

My understanding is performance of tasks  normally  carried out = hair stylists  regularly  use substances.

I think the focus between B and D should be the positive or negative manner of framing, resulting in an almost similar overlapping set but B matches the question more wholly.

IMO B.

GmatStuck · Answer

My observation:
The argument in the passage is based on conditional Reasoning: 
licensing requirement = Sufficient condition
Threat to life= Necessary condition

My ans: B - Contrapositive implementation of the principle mentioned in the passage

Trap ans:
A: Could have been the correct ans if it did not include the word 'some'
C: Reversal
D: Reversal
E: Reversal

nishantswaft · Answer

Hi  tommychudw  ,

See the argument says that "   incompetence in the performance of tasks normally carried out within that occupation  poses  a plausible threat to human health or safety.  "

Whereas option D says that "  hair stylists regularly use substances that  can pose  a threat to human health  "

See the difference? 
Arguments demands certainty whereas option is talking about a possibility.

tommychudw · Answer

That is actually clear, thanks for clarifying.

Cheers!

yashsharma1 · Answer

Resons for rejection
A. Becuase SOME duties have no human health impact, cannot mean licence should not be required at all
C. The HA make decisions that AFFECT the health of people. Doesn't necessarily mean their decisions can THREATEN their health. For ex, an admin might be assigned a role of maintaining gloves and other usables in hospital. If those are not present, may affect the lives but not necessarily threaten.
D. Substances CAN POSE A THREAT, means don't necessarily pose a definitive threat to the human lives.
E. IMO, because the option is talking specifically about a subset of artists who do not maintain sanitation, this faulty group should not be taken as a sample size for the 'performance of tasks normally carried out' condition of the question. Hence not correct representation of the profession itself.

Why B is correct.
Q - If INCOMPETENCE in performance of tasks NORMALLY CARRIED OUT poses a THREAT to human lives
B - POOR WORK done by interior designers, in NO REALISTIC CIRCUMSTANCES, poses a DANGER to human lives

Though this is a negation option, it is almost verbatim restating the principle.

No occupation should be subject to a licensing requirement unless

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

No occupation should be subject to a licensing requirement unless

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards