Passage Summary: Government meddling in the market is like taking medicine: it has bad side effects, so you should only do it if the alternative—doing nothing—is even worse.

Conclusion: Government intervention in the market is only ethically acceptable when the consequences of not intervening would be worse than the intervention itself.

Reasoning: The economist argues that market intervention is like medicine: both have harmful side effects, so they should only be used if the alternative (doing nothing) is more damaging.

Analysis: This argument relies on a strict analogy. The author sets up a 'necessary condition' for medicine: it's only okay if [Nonuse Harm > Use Harm]. To complete the argument, we must apply that same logic to the market. Look for an answer choice that states intervention is only justified if the harm caused by the 'disease' (the market problem) is greater than the harm caused by the 'cure' (the price distortions). The structure is a 'lesser of two evils' comparison.