- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8916
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:55 pm
#33319
Complete Question Explanation
Main Point. The correct answer choice is (A)
This doctor is a proponent of taxing junk food, based on the fact that in many countries the excessive consumption of junk food contributes to serious health issues. Since increasing the prices to make junk food more expensive than health food would incentivize dietary change, the doctor believes that taxing junk food would benefit public health.
The argument breaks down as follows:
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. As prephrased above, the doctor’s conclusion is that public health would benefit from taxing junk food.
Answer choice (B): As discussed above, the point that excess junk food contributes to serious health issues is a premise upon which the author’s conclusion is based; it is not the author’s main conclusion.
Answer choice (C): This is not the doctor’s conclusion, but rather a premise (that more expensive junk food would incentivize beneficial dietary changes) which supports the author’s main point—that taxing junk food would be good for public health.
Answer choice (D): This choice is an interesting sort of mid-step between the premises and the author’s main point, that it would benefit public health if junk food were taxed.
Answer choice (E): If this choice was appealing, that might be because it appears phrased to deceive. This choice provides that junk food should be taxed if doing so would benefit public health. The doctor’s main point is that taxing junk food would benefit public health, so this does not reflect the doctor’s main conclusion and should be ruled out of contention.
Main Point. The correct answer choice is (A)
This doctor is a proponent of taxing junk food, based on the fact that in many countries the excessive consumption of junk food contributes to serious health issues. Since increasing the prices to make junk food more expensive than health food would incentivize dietary change, the doctor believes that taxing junk food would benefit public health.
The argument breaks down as follows:
- Premise:
In many countries, excessive junk food contributes to serious health issues.
Premise: If the junk food were much more expensive than health food, dietary changes would result.
Conclusion: Public health would benefit from junk food taxation.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. As prephrased above, the doctor’s conclusion is that public health would benefit from taxing junk food.
Answer choice (B): As discussed above, the point that excess junk food contributes to serious health issues is a premise upon which the author’s conclusion is based; it is not the author’s main conclusion.
Answer choice (C): This is not the doctor’s conclusion, but rather a premise (that more expensive junk food would incentivize beneficial dietary changes) which supports the author’s main point—that taxing junk food would be good for public health.
Answer choice (D): This choice is an interesting sort of mid-step between the premises and the author’s main point, that it would benefit public health if junk food were taxed.
Answer choice (E): If this choice was appealing, that might be because it appears phrased to deceive. This choice provides that junk food should be taxed if doing so would benefit public health. The doctor’s main point is that taxing junk food would benefit public health, so this does not reflect the doctor’s main conclusion and should be ruled out of contention.
