If legislators are to enact laws

Answer choices

1. A

   Irrelevant Comparison: "less concerned"26% picked this

   Legislation will not benefit constituents unless legislators become less concerned with

   This feels somewhat close to describing, “What we’re doing is not the same as what we need to do in order to achieve goal X”. The problem is that our author is saying “legislators need to consider consequences”, not “legislators need to become less concerned with their careers”. Unless there were some logical link between those two ideas, the author doesn’t have to insist on legislators’ caring less about their careers.

   26%
2. B

   Out of Scope: Successful legislatures2% picked this

   Legislatures that enact laws that benefit constituents are

   The author isn’t committed to believing that every legislature that enacts laws is a successful one. She never uses the concept of whether legislatures are successful or not, and she could certainly believe that passing beneficial laws is only one component of being a successful legislature (maybe refraining from graft is another).

   2%
3. C

   Too Strong2% picked this

   The passage of laws cannot benefit constituents unless constituents generally adhere

   Too Strong: cannot unless Out of Scope: adhere to laws Did the author ever make this reasoning move: If constituents Then passage of don't mostly → laws can't benefit adhere to laws constituents No. The argument never discusses whether or not constituents adhere to laws. Even though it seems very common sense true to think “if people aren’t following a law, then how could it benefit them?”, ‘adhering to the law’ is not part of the author’s evidence or conclusion.

   2%
4. D

   Correct67% picked this

   Legislators considering a proposed law for which they have repugnance or enthusiasm do not consider the consequences that

   Why this is right

   This supplies that missing link between premises we were looking for. We know that contemporary legislators present proposed laws in ways that arouse repugnance or enthusiasm, and we know that the author assumes that they aren't considering the consequences of those proposed laws. So this answer is connecting those two ideas. If we negated this, we would have a huge weakener: “When legislators have repugnance or enthusiasm they DO consider the consequences of the proposed law!”

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

   67%
5. E

   Out of Scope: "inability to consider"3% picked this

   The inability of legislators to consider the actual consequences of enacting a proposed law is due to their

   This is very tempting, but the author never says that legislators are unable to consider consequences. We can infer that the author thinks that they currently don’t consider them, but that could be due to inability or to unwillingness or to compulsion from outside forces. If someone is currently getting music through YouTube and an author is suggesting that they should instead get music through Spotify, he doesn’t have to assume that “getting music through YouTube makes them unable to get music through Spotify”. They might not even know Spotify exists. The author is merely assuming that “getting music through YouTube is not the same as getting music through Spotify”.

   3%