Municipal legislator: The mayor

Answer choices

1. A

   Unstated Inference11% picked this

   Some people's fear that the company wants to influence the city's decision regarding park lighting

   The author does seem to hold this position. She acknowledges "some people's fear" and then shows that it is not something to worry about, via her final sentence. So we could infer that the author believes that their fear is unfounded. But is "Their fear is unfounded" our best meaning-match for "Surely there would be no problem in accepting this gift of streetlights"? We should keep this on a first pass, but ultimately (B) is a much closer paraphrase of the 2nd sentence. We would use "their fear is unfounded" as support for the main conclusion that "thus, there's nothing wrong with accepting the gift".

   11%
2. B

   Correct59% picked this

   The mayor's proposal to accept the gift of streetlights should not

   Why this is right

   This is the best available meaning-match for the 2nd sentence, which said "There would be no problem in accepting the gift of these free streetlights." i.e., accepting the gift is not problematic

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

   59%
3. C

   Unstated / Opposite3% picked this

   It is not appropriate that any company should have the unique opportunity to display its products to mayors

   This looks nothing like the 2nd sentence, because this is talking about displaying products at the upcoming convention, which the 2nd sentence does not discuss. If we choose to read it more carefully, we'd see that it's also offering an opinion that seems to go against what our author is saying. Our author seems at peace with the quid pro quo of "Our city gets these free streetlights, and this lighting company gets to show off its cool streetlights to other cities' mayors when the mayors visit our town for the convention".

   3%
4. D

   Premise Last-Claim Trap21% picked this

   The city's competitive-bidding procedure prevents favoritism in the dispensing of

   We want to always be super sketched out about picking the last claim as the conclusion on Main Conclusion, since it's only the final claim about 10% of the time. This is a fact. And it's unsupported. The author didn't try to persuade us that the competitive bidding procedure prevents favoritism. No supporting claims are offered on its behalf. The author uses this idea to establish that we don't have to worry about lighting company's gift earning it any undue favoritism, which is used to establish the idea that there's no problem in accepting the gift.

   21%
5. E

   Premise5% picked this

   The lighting company's desire to display its products to visiting mayors is the real motivation behind the

   We could potentially call this premise an Intermediate Conclusion because the final sentence somewhat offers support. "why should we believe that the lighting company's real desire in offering the free gift is to show off its lights at the upcoming convention? Because ... it's not like they can otherwise curry favor when it comes to awarding contracts, as contracts are awarded via a competitive bidding procedure." But this idea supports the Main Conclusion. "Since the lighting company's motivation in offering this gift is simply to show off their lights to mayors at the upcoming convention, there's surely no problem in us accepting this gift."

   5%