Editorial: Our political discussion

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct90% picked this

   Examining an individual leader's personal flaws does not reveal anything about how the nation's institutions and procedures influence

   Why this is right

   Seeing ruling-out language like "not/no" is always inviting on Necessary Assumption. These are answers we want to negate and see if they turn into an objection. Would this negation weaken? Examining a leader's personal flaws does reveal something about how the nation's institutions and procedures influence the selection of leaders. Yes, that would weaken. We could say, "So focusing on flaws is not a pointless distraction. After all, it reveals things that help us answer the real question that needs answering."

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

   90%
2. B

   Out of Scope: more common3% picked this

   Political discussions that focus on the flaws of the nation's leaders will become even more common if the nation's institutions

   This argument wasn't making any predictions about the future, so the fact that this answer is in future tense doesn't match the conversation. Since this answer is conditional, we want to look at it in diagrammed form (mentally or on our paper) and judge whether the author made this reasoning move. Did the argument make this move? if we don't examine then discussions our institutions and → focusing on flaws procedures will become more common No, the author never predicted that focusing-on-flaws would become more common.

   3%
3. C

   Too Strong: ensure / only3% picked this

   The workings of the nation's current institutions and procedures ensure that only flawed individuals will

   We know that strong language is a red flag on Necessary Assumption and this fireball has two red flags. The author was never saying that our current systems guarantee that only flawed individuals attain power. The author was just saying to the extent that we do have flawed individuals in positions of power, rather than focusing on their flaws we should figure out how our current systems allowed them to make it into seats of power.

   3%
4. D

   Too Strong: no one2% picked this

   As yet, no one in the nation has made the effort to critically examine the details of the

   We know that strong language is a red flag on Necessary Assumption and this is saying not a single person has ever made any effort to critically examine the details of our institutions / procedures. That's way too strong. The author was merely saying that our political discussions tend to focus on leaders' flaws. That isn't denying the possibility that anyone has ever focused instead on institutions / procedures.

   2%
5. E

   Out of Scope: greater dissatisfaction1% picked this

   Concentrating on the flaws of the nation's leaders creates greater dissatisfaction

   The author never suggests that when we focus on the flaws of our leaders, it leads to greater dissatisfaction. The author is only claiming that we are pointlessly distracting ourselves from the real question that needs answering, not that we are increasing our animosity toward our leaders.

   1%