When poor people rely on public assistance year after year,

What's the source of the question?

I got confused between A and E. But then eventually chose E. Here's why.

Government rules for public assistance run counter to EFFORTS TO EMPLOY PEOPLE.

There has been no information about the EFFORTS TO EMPLOY PEOPLE. It just says that poor people dependent on public assistance forget skills to get a full time job.
Experts please chip in. I don't really think A qualifies as the answer. mikemcgarry Please help

"Thus, policy specialists recommend
1>such people be given at least a few hours of paid work weekly.
2>To receive public assistance from the government, people must not have worked in the past year"

are these two not the part of recommendation as opposed to second statement considered as government position by some of the posts above.
I agree with ShashankDave . We are not aware of government's effort to employ people.
If we assume recommendation from specialists to be true, choice E is what I feel is correct

Someone please explain option A.

All i understand is policy specialist recommend such people be given some hours of paid work.
To get public assistance people must not have worked in the *past year*.

So those who haven't not worked in the past year will get public assistance but how is the counter to efforts to employ people. They may be still working now and get public assistance.

Hi, I would request your help in understanding the answer choices. I ended up choosing option (e) and couldn't make out how option (a) makes more sense.

Explanation


A. Correct. Policy specialists are suggesting to employ poor people for few hours so that the poor can remain their job skills,but government policy is that to get public assistance, the poor should be unemployed. Therefore, government rules are contradicting policy specialists.

A. Correct. Policy specialists are suggesting to employ poor people for few hours so that the poor can remain their job skills,but government policy is that to get public assistance, the poor should be unemployed. Therefore, government rules are contradicting policy specialists

E. irrelevant . This conclusion does not support the main topic.

KUDOS me if you feel my contribution has helped you.

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!