Question 1

The purpose of the proposed law requiring a doctor's prescription for obtaining hypodermic needles is to lower the incidence of drug-related deaths, both accidental and intentional, involving hypodermic needles. But even knitting needles can be lethal if they fall into the wrong hands; yet everyone would agree that imposing legal restrictions on obtaining knitting needles would be preposterous. Hence the proposed law involving hypodermic makes no sense and should not be enacted.

Which of the following, it true, would provide most support for the argument above?
 

(A)	Knitting needles have been known to cause injury and death.
(B)	The benefits of hypodermic needles outweigh those of knitting needles.
(C)	The proposed law would not deter the sort of activity known to result in drug-related deaths.
(D)	The proposed law could not be effectively enforced.
(E)	Knitting needles are not readily available to anybody who wants to obtain them.

To review your response, use your browser's BACK button.

Go to NEXT Question >

The correct response is (A). The argument is essentially that the proposed law makes no sense because knitting needles are dangerous as well. The argument relies explicitly on an analogy between hypodermic and knitting needles. Thus, the two must be similar in all respects relevant to the argument. Otherwise, the argument is unconvincing. (A) affirms that knitting needles are in fact dangerous, thereby affirming the analogy between the two types of needles.

(B), (C) and (D) each in its own way supports the bare assertion that the proposed law might not be effective. However, none of these answer choices affirms the argument's essential reasoning.

(E) actually weakens the argument, by providing a reason why hypodermic needles and knitting needles are not relevantly similar.