Q19 - Editor: Many candidates say

[dan]

19. (A)
Question Type: Strengthen the Conclusion
What candidates promise before they are elected and what they actually do once they are elected are sometimes two very different things. In order for the conclusion to hold, the author must assume that campaign promises will be kept (the government will intrude by raising taxes). The argument will be strengthened if this assumption is made explicit. Answer (A) does this.

(B) is the exact opposite! It weakens the argument.
(C) is out of scope (most common problems?).
(D) is out of scope (a comparison of democratic systems versus non-democratic systems?).
(E) is also out of scope. We don’t care what happens to politicians who promise to do what they actually believe ought to be done. The passage clearly states that politicians who promise to help voters are the ones who get elected. What matters is whether they keep these promises, NOT whether they believe in these promises.


#officialexplanation

[b91302310]

Hello,

In solving this question, as the conclusion is to disapprove the first sentence in the stimulus, I was trying to find the answer which could weaken the first sentence in order to strengthen the conclusion. Could that be logically correct?

Also, as both answer choices (A) and (B) are regarding the politicians already being elected (who win their elections and once in office), does it mean that there is no effects of answer choices (A) and (B) on the first sentence as this sentence does not refer to the candidates who are already elected?

Thanks !

[noah]

In solving this question, as the conclusion is to disapprove the first sentence in the stimulus, I was trying to find the answer which could weaken the first sentence in order to strengthen the conclusion. Could that be logically correct?

Be careful with this approach. With this structure of argument - counter premise, premise, conclusion - the conclusion doesn't have to be specifically a contradiction of the first sentence. For example: People say that New Yorkers are rude. But I was just mugged with a smile. So, you can't believe everything you hear.

Stick to the basics and identify the conclusion. Here, the conclusion is: government intrusion into voters' lives will rarely be reduced over time in a democracy. What's the support? Voters elect politicians that promise aid, and that requires money, which requires taxes, which is an intrusion.

The gap in this argument is that the premise speaks of what politicians promise, but the conclusion is based on what happens. As mentioned in the explanation above, just because politicians promise something, does it mean they will do it?

Also, as both answer choices (A) and (B) are regarding the politicians already being elected (who win their elections and once in office), does it mean that there is no effects of answer choices (A) and (B) on the first sentence as this sentence does not refer to the candidates who are already elected?

Yes, that's correct. Thought that's not a reason to eliminate them - (A) is the correct answer! Mentioning the elected politicians helps bridge the gap between the promises that canddiatres make and the acts of elected politicians, who are mentioned in the second sentence.

Thanks !

Happy to help! Did that clear it up?

[b91302310]

Very clear. Thanks again!

[b91302310]

For one more question, is the structure in this argument like the one in June 07, S2, Q21, "Driver: My friends..." ?

Premise : My friends say I will... because I drive
my sports car recklessly.
Counter premise: "But I have done some
research..."
Conclusion: So trading my sports car in for a
minivan would lower my risk of having
an accident.

Again, when reading the stimulus, I found this argument weak becasue its conclusion fails to catch the real casue (i.e. reckless drive) of an accident.

However, in response to the question, as the author's conclusion is based on the second premise, shall I focus only on the flaw of the relationship between the second premise and the conclusion instead of caring about what the driver's friends say in the first premise ?

Thanks!

[VanessaO186]

My prephrase for this question was What if the voters do not consider taxes to be an intrusion? This in my mind leaves open the possibility of something else being able to potentially reduce intrusion substantially

Could that be a possible answer