Q25 - Certain governments subsidize certain basic

[b91302310]

The argument proceed by introducing a solution to specific problem but the consequence of the solution will be another new problem.

I understand why (C) is a better choice in structure ;however, for the last sentence in (C)-those forces must be used in actual combat periodically, is it a new problem or negative effect brought about by the arm enforcement? To me, it is more like a reminder of the arm enforement.

Could anyone explain it?
Thanks!

[bbirdwell]

Not sure what you mean by "reminder."

The original flaw is that an action results in the opposite of its intention (guarantee production --> decrease yields).

This is what (C) says: Governments have armed forces to avoid conflict. But maintaining forces requires using them in conflict.

[b91302310]

For the stimulus, I thought that an action out of good intention finally results in "negative effect". Also, since I didn't regard "requiring more combat" as negative (could be the necessary condition), I felt that the answer did not match the argument. However, it is reasonable for (C) to be correct if the action results in the "opposite" of its intention.

Thanks for the clear-up.

[soyeonjeon]

Is E incorrect because it's not the traffic law that causes the negative effect? But the population-driven growth is?

Thanks

[claudia.minoiu]

I thought the original argument contained an intermediary step:

subsidies --> more intensive farming --> soil exhaustion --> reduces yields

E not only matches the original argument in terms of an action that generates the opposite effect, but also contains this intermediary step which C does not.

Any thoughts?

[plaouplezm]

I was stuck on (E) too, but I think it's the certainty level that ultimately makes it incorrect. It states "often" which is weaker than the "must" provided in (C), compared with "eventually" in ac.

[maryadkins]

I'm with you on "often"—I don't love it either in (E) (though I, too, see why (E) is tempting).

My bigger problem with (E), however, is what a previous poster posted: in (E), it's not the traffic laws that are causing the problem. It's the population growth.

In the stimulus, it's the subsidies themselves that are causing the issue, so that's what we want to find. (C) is a match; there is a counter-effect caused by the creation of the thing, itself (a strong armed force).

As for the other answer choices:

There isn't a backlash (or counter-effect) in (A), nor in (B). Though (B) has a consequence that could be negative, it's not the negative thing that the government is seeking to prevent (the government isn't trying to prevent businesses from having high profits). It's not, in other words, the OPPOSITE of what the government is trying to accomplish. We want a situation where the opposite happens, as it does in the stimulus. (D) also lacks the cause-effect structure of the stimulus.