Editorialist: News media rarely cover local

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: likely16% picked this

   Particular acts of resident participation would be likely to elicit a positive response from local politicians if those politicians were

   If politicians were less isolated from their electorate, then particular acts of resident participation would be more likely to elicit a positive response from local politicians, but to say that the response would be likely goes too far.

   16%
2. B

   Out of Scope: should11% picked this

   Local political business should be conducted less secretively because this would avoid discouraging resident participation

   The statements do not discuss what should or should not be the case.

   11%
3. C

   Too Strong: most important8% picked this

   The most important factor influencing a resident’s decision as to whether to participate in local politics is the chance that the participation

   The statements imply that the chance that a resident’s participation will elicit a positive official response is a factor that influences a resident’s decision to participate, but to say that it’s the most important factor goes too far.

   8%
4. D

   Correct60% picked this

   More-frequent thorough coverage of local politics would reduce at least one source of discouragement from resident

   Why this is right

   This answer relies on a causal chain from rare coverage of local politics to discourage resident participation in local politics. So reducing the thing that starts the causal chain will reduce the effect as well.

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

   60%
5. E

   Unsupported Relationship5% picked this

   If resident participation in local politics were not discouraged, this would cause local politicians to be less

   This answer attempts to make causality flow backwards, via a pseudo-contrapositive. Causality doesn't really work in reverse, or contraposed. If we know that A causes B, we can't say "B causes A". We also can't say, "a lack of B would cause a lack of A" (although we could support "a lack of B would indicate a lack of A")

   5%