Large-scale government projects designed

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct59% picked this

   Large-scale government projects sometimes enhance the welfare

   Why this is right

   Two things are immediately attractive about this answer: - weak language (sometimes) - connecting things we talked about (large scale projects / welfare of society) Most appealing --- the conclusion is about whether something does / doesn't diminish the welfare of society. The author sounds worried that in a government by referendum, these big projects that initially benefit some small segment of society would be less likely to get government approval. The author thinks that if the public is voting on issues (i.e. referendum), then they'll shoot down these large-scale projects because only a small segment initially benefits from them. Since the author is sad that a government by referendum would lead to fewer of these projects getting funded, he must think that these projects would have done some good for the world had they been funded. Hence, he's assuming that these projects sometimes enhance society's welfare. If we negated this, it would make his argument sound silly. If large-scale projects never enhanced the welfare of a society, and that was the author's only evidence for why government by referendum would diminish society's welfare, then the author has no case anymore.

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   59%
2. B

   Unknown Comparison: govt vs. private7% picked this

   Large-scale projects are more likely to fulfill their intended purposes if they are not executed

   This answer is implicitly talking about a comparison between the government executing a large-scale project and a private organization doing so. The argument is only about government projects, so bringing in private-backed projects is totally out of scope.

   7%
3. C

   Too Strong: undermines democracy10% picked this

   Government by referendum actually undermines the

   The author thinks that government by referendum will make it harder for large-scale government projects to get funded, so he thinks that society will be worse off, for not getting all those tasty roads, schools, and bridges. But he never talks about this doing anything to undermine the democratic process.

   10%
4. D

   Too Strong / Scope: primary purpose13% picked this

   The primary purpose of an equal distribution of political power is to enhance the

   The author is never addressing what the purpose of equal distribution of power is. He mentions an effect of more equal distribution of power (less likely for big government projects to be funded). But he's only concerned with what comes after equal distribution (its effects), not with what comes before equal distribution (its purpose).

   13%
5. E

   Too Strong12% picked this

   Government by referendum is the only way to distribute political power

   Too Strong: only way Relative vs. Absolute The author doesn't have to subscribe to this extreme idea: the only way to distribute power equally. The reference we had to distributing power isn't a yes / no type idea. It was a Volume Dial type idea: the more X, the less Y The author is only thinking that referendum results in power being more equally and widely distributed. He probably thinks that government by elected representatives also counts as "a way to distribute political power somewhat equally / widely". We wouldn't accuse him of thinking that government by referendum is the only route to equal political power or even that it actually achieves equal political power. We'd only accuse him of thinking that government by referendum is a route to more equally distributed power than government by representatives.

   12%