To the editor: For generations

Answer choices

1. A

   Untriggered Conditional12% picked this

   If good character is developed in children early, the children continue to have good character

   This answer almost feels like the objection of, "We've already instilled good character in these children, and they will be able to continue to have good character even in a different environment where there's a local racetrack and local gambling." But we've never established the children already developed good character. And this author is precisely worried that once the racetrack is built, the local atmosphere will not allow for good character to develop early in children. In other words, this answer might work for saying that our local teens (who hopefully have already developed good character) will be fine, but it does nothing to reassure the author that future children in this area (who would grow up around gambling) will be fine.

   12%
2. B

   Correct77% picked this

   In other areas with gambling, parents are able to raise children

   Why this is right

   This directly attacks the author's assumption that "if we have gambling here, it will become an atmosphere where the goal is to get something for nothing, and thus the kids won't develop good character". This answer is saying, "Other places with gambling still have kids with good character". This helps us argue that "even if I favor developing good character in children over gambling on horses, I can still vote to allow this racetrack. I don't think the latter impedes the former." It's a pretty weak answer, because saying parents are able could mean something as paltry as "it's possible! there's at least one example!". But it definitely helps us to argue that we can build the racetrack, while addressing the author's concern about children's character.

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

   77%
3. C

   Strengthens, if anything1% picked this

   In most areas with horse racing, the percentage of adults who gamble increases gradually from

   This answer would help the author's case, by making it seem like once we have a racetrack, more and more of the local adult population will get into gambling (and so more and more parental role models will be sending the wrong message to our children).

   1%
4. D

   Weak Impact10% picked this

   Children whose parents gamble do not necessarily gamble when they

   This is somewhat decent, although it's very weakly worded. "People who are A are not necessarily B" is only really offering at-least-one data point. This answer is only saying that there is at least one child of a gambling parent who grew up to not be a gambler. But the reason this loses to (B) is that the author was not worried specifically that children would grow up to be gamblers; it was that children would grow up without developing good character. It also wasn't specifically about gambling parents as much as it was living in an area that has a gambling facility.

   10%
5. E

   No Impact1% picked this

   Where voters have had the opportunity to vote on horse racing, they have

   This only tells us a statistical fact about whether voters have / haven't voted for horse racing. The argument's conclusion is about whether voters should have / shouldn't have voted for horse racing. This answer doesn't give us any new fact that could enter our debate over whether we should allow horse racing.

   1%