PT144 · S2 · Q13 Some of the politicians who strongly

We only heard about people who don't publicly support extending. We have no information about people who do support it, so we can't derive this idea from the paragraph. This answer is trying to bait people into thinking that hypocrisy works both ways. "If there were 'hypocrites' who supported it for Canada, the United States, and Mexico but won't publicly support it for others, then are hypocrites who publicly support it for others but didn't support it for Canada, the United States, and Mexico". This is like if we said, "Some people who have never served in the military are nevertheless in favor of going to war" and an answer said, "Oh, well then it must be true that some people who have served in the military are not in favor of going to war".

Whenever we see negative statements, we translate them into their positive form: No A's are B = All A's are ~B Few A's are B = Most A's are ~B Not all A's are B = Some A's are ~B So this answer is saying, "Some politicians who publicly support extending to other Latin American countries did not support free trade among Canada, United States, and Mexico." We only heard about people who don't publicly support extending. We have no information about people who do support it, so we can't derive this idea from the paragraph.

This isn't precise enough to pick. "Changed their position" doesn't clearly refer to whether or not they publicly support an idea. A politician's position on an issue is not necessarily the same as whether they've publicly supported an issue. There might be some reason why these politicians are now refusing to publicly support extending free trade to other countries, even though privately they would support extending it. It also might be that "their position on free trade" is conditional. Maybe they their position is "free trade should exist between nations that have a GDP over $500 billion", and the other Latin American countries don't meet that qualification. In that case, their position could remain entirely constant, and the implication of their position is that free trade should be happening among Canada, United States, and Mexico but not among other Latin American countries.

We know that some politicians that supported free trade among Canada, United States, and Mexico refuse to support publicly extending that trade, but "refusing to publicly support" is different from "publicly opposing". You can always take the cowardly option of just not making public statements one way or the other (if you refuse to publicly support but don't want to publicly oppose).