PrepTest 132, Section 2, Question 26
Editorial: It has been suggested that private, for-profit(52 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(13 more words not shown)
- AA private company(24 more words not shown)
- BIf something is(23 more words not shown)
- CDrinking water should(16 more words not shown)
- DThe mere fact(18 more words not shown)
- EIf something is(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Couldn't a company make money by providing clean water?
A profit motive doesn't automatically prevent a useful result. Think of a phone company: selling phones people want can serve its goal of earning money while also giving customers useful phones. Likewise, a water supplier might earn its profit by delivering the clean water people need. We'd still want evidence that the proposal would work, but the company's motive alone doesn't show it won't.
The editorial nevertheless concludes that private companies should not supply the water. Its reason combines two facts: water is essential for health, while the companies' purpose is profit. To justify that conclusion, we need a rule connecting those facts to who should supply water.
What we’re looking for
My first thought is a rule saying that pursuing profit interferes with promoting health. That would challenge the possibility that the company could serve both goals. Let's see whether the choices supply that connection or another principle that makes the editorial's stated reason support its recommendation.
Working the answers
- A
This requires government provision before a private supplier can be allowed. We aren't told whether a government agency would also supply the water. The editorial rejects private suppliers based on their purpose, not on the absence of a government supplier, so A doesn't complete its reasoning.
- B
We don't know that private companies are unwilling or unable to provide the water. Their profit motive doesn't establish either condition. A rule telling the government to step in when private suppliers cannot or will not act doesn't justify excluding the private suppliers here.
- C
The passage hasn't established that private companies can't consistently provide clean, safe water. That's precisely what we questioned: a company could pursue profit while delivering a useful service. C would apply if inability were established, but it doesn't turn the given motive into that inability.
- D
Doing something that promotes health doesn't necessarily make health the organization's purpose. That's a distinction we can accept. But D never says which purpose a water provider should have. Separating motive from effect doesn't by itself establish the editorial's recommendation.
- ECorrect
This chooses providers according to their primary purpose: something necessary for health should come from an organization primarily devoted to promoting health. Clean water is necessary for health, while the private companies described here aim to make profit. They therefore don't meet E's criterion for the provider.
This takes a different route from my prediction. It doesn't show that a profit-seeking company is unable to deliver clean water. It supplies a rule about who should provide it, based on purpose, which is the distinction the editorial relies on.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.