- Mon May 10, 2021 12:25 am
I agree with previous posts about the rationales in this question, but I wanted to approach this type of "principle conform" questions from a different angle.
On the face of it, the argument provides two premises: (1) not imposing tariff on imported fruit will put domestic fruit growers out of business; and (2) despite more lucrative industrial uses of farmland resulting from domestic fruit growers going out of business, a unique way of life (growing fruit) will vanish. Based upon premise (1), both (A) and (D) seem attractive, as they kinda talks about similar idea of putting domestic interest first.
However, the two premises are not parallel to each other. The fact that they are connected by "This will result in ...," with "this" referring to premise (1), indicates that the relationship between them is actually progressive. In other words, premise (2) is built upon premise (1), which essentially makes premise (2) an intermediate conclusion. So premise (1) is not directly supporting the conclusion.
When the question stem asks about "the politician's recommendation," which is the final conclusion, the only relevant reasoning is that between the intermediate conclusion and the final conclusion, which is about the "vanishing of a unique way of life" piece. In this sense, premise (1) should be discounted in this question. Any thoughts? Thanks!