Q15 - In 1992, there were over 250 rescues of mountain climb

[cnguye15]

Hi,
I was deciding between B and C but I ended up pick C. It seems like B does strengthen the argument because the core argument here is that climbers should forfeit a sum of money to the government in case of calamity to reimburse the cost of rescuing them. Nonetheless, a criticism to the argument can be to the effect that climbers can take care of themselves without the government's involvement. Thus, answer B seem to defend the argument from this criticism by saying that the government has obligation to protect people from danger.
Is this a correct reasoning? Thanks

[tommywallach]

Hey cnguye,

The core here is:

Conclusion: Climbers should have to put up money to climb
Premise: Rescues are expensive and more and more people are climbing.

(A) This principle would support the argument, because at present, taxpayers are paying to support climbers.

(B) This principle would support the argument, because ostensibly, the bond might deter some people from climbing, thus risking their lives. [Yep, your reasoning was perfect!]

(C) CORRECT. The passage never said that they would change the cost of the bond in any way to reflect training. They could have, but they didn't.

(D) This is similar to (A). The rescues are clearly publicly subsidized, so this would imply that people shouldn't just get that service for free.

(E) This is very similar to both (A) and (D).

Hope that helps!

-t

[jones.mchandler]

E seemed to be the correct answer to me because it says "...[people who climb] should be held responsible for the cost of treating any injuries."

The argument is about costs resulting from rescues, not any injury related costs that result from activities such as climbing.

Are we supposed to assume that any injures at all that result from "physically risky behavior" are being picked up by Uncle Sam?

[maryadkins]

That's a fair point. (E) assumes that "rescue" to at least some extent overlaps with treatment of injuries. That's a bit of a stretch.

BUT it's less of a stretch than (C), which is about training, which is unquestionably out of scope.

Best go with the closer stretch than the further stretch when in doubt.

[uhdang]

First of all, I thought it was a very good catch for jones.mchandler. Did NOT notice that until I read the post.

But when I looked at the argument, "a large sum of money" seem to be focusing on the "case of calamity" more than "rescuing", because, although the author gives rescuing cost as a premise, as he/she presents money as a deterrence, usage of money expands to "the case of calamity", which doesn't necessarily refer only to rescuing cost. Thus, I think it's fair to say that money used in case of calamity does include cost of treating injuries.

What do you think?

[maryadkins]

Yes, I like it!