3. A Stem: These statements, if true, sustain which of the following conclusions?
Major Premise(s)
• If on Pub Assistance, specialists recommend they be given at least a few hours of paid work weekly.
• Get Pub Assist --> NO paid work in the past year.
Prediction: The recommendation from the specialist goes against getting Public assistance in the future. A: maybe. Need to tease this apart.
B: No evidence is present that this is the ONLY answer to the problem of lost work skills. Nothing leads me to this conclusion.
C: No evidence in the passage that lets us conclude this. This answer is NOT what the stem is asking us to do.
D: Same as B and C
E: Same as B, C, and D.
Let’s break apart A: “Government rules for public assistance run counter to efforts to employ people. I see two kinds of employing people:
1) A few days a week to keep their unemployment—but if they do that, they will lose their unemployment next year.
2) A more long-term employment so people don’t need to be on assistance any longer.
Now, if the government HELPS people to become employed, they will give a few hours of paid work per week. Then, they will be ineligible for assistance. YIKES. That rule runs counter to the idea that the people not in the workforce need to get their foot in so to speak. If the people are to return to work, they need those few hours of being employed. Yes, Government rules for public assistance run counter to (the specialist’s) efforts to employ people.
This is twisty. Make sure this makes sense before moving on!