grocery clerk believes strongly in telling the truth; however, he lies to intruders who ask him where the store safe is kept. How could this contradiction be best explained? The grocery store clerk:

A. obviously has very weak beliefs: This option doesn’t make sense. The fact that the clerk lies in one particular instance doesn’t necessarily mean that he has weak beliefs. His strong belief in telling the truth could still be genuine, and the contradiction may simply be explained by the extreme situation.

B. was afraid of the intruders and feared for his life: This is the most reasonable explanation. In a threatening situation, the clerk might have decided that telling a lie was the best way to protect himself or the store, even though he values honesty in general.

C. wanted the intruders to leave quickly: While it’s possible that the clerk might have wanted to get rid of the intruders, this doesn’t fully explain why he would lie about the safe’s location. Fear of harm seems like a more compelling explanation than simply wanting them to leave quickly.

D. believed strongly in his work responsibilities: While this could be an explanation for his behavior in some contexts, it doesn’t directly address the contradiction. His responsibility to protect the store and himself could override his personal belief in honesty, but fear is a more likely motivator in this situation.

A. consider your past experiences with the candidate: While your past experiences may influence your feelings about the candidate, they do not directly help you analyze or evaluate the article's argument. It’s important to focus on the substance of the article itself, not personal biases or prior interactions with the candidate.
B. refute the opinions presented in the article: Refuting the opinions presented in the article may be an option later, but it should not be your initial step. First, it’s crucial to understand and evaluate the argument being made, rather than simply disagreeing with it outright.
C. identify the personal importance of the regulation: While understanding how the regulation personally affects you can be valuable, it is not the primary step in evaluating the argument. A well-rounded evaluation requires you to assess the merit of the argument itself, not just how it might impact you personally.
D. focus your attention on the argument being made: This is the best approach. To draw a fair and informed conclusion about the article, you should first focus on the argument presented within it. Analyze the reasoning, evidence, and claims made about the new air traffic control regulations, and only then form a reasoned opinion or conclusion.