Political scientist: Some analysts point to

Answer choices

1. A

   Irrelevant Causality: helped organize1% picked this

   The government helped to organize the recent

   We know that the government endorsed the view of the protest rally, but the author doesn't need to assume the government was actively involved in organizing it. The argument would be no worse if the government had nothing to do with it, but did approve of its message.

   1%
2. B

   Too Strong: didn't concern any2% picked this

   The message of the recent protest rally did not concern any function

   This is a very strong (and thus suspicious) idea. If we negated it and said, "The message of the rally did concern some function of the government", does that weaken the argument? No. We know the government supported the message of the rally, so maybe the rally concerned some function of the government and the government supported what they were saying (maybe it was a protest against corporate funding of elections and demanding publicly financed campaigns, which the government actually supports).

   2%
3. C

   Correct97% picked this

   The government would not have accepted a protest rally whose message

   Why this is right

   By negating this, we get: "The government would accept a protest rally whose message it opposed." This severely weakens the argument because it suggests a scenario where the government might still support freedom of expression, thus undermining the political scientist's claim. This is the Assumed Difference.

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

   97%
4. D

   Out of Scope0% picked this

   There are groups that are inhibited from staging a protest rally out of a fear

   Out of Scope: inhibited fear of backlash The author doesn't need to assume there are any groups who are afraid of the wrath of the government and thus won't stage a protest. If we negate this, then no group is inhibited by fear. They may still fearfully stage the protest, but the fear doesn't stop them from staging the protest. That's still totally compatible with the author's view, that the government doesn't support freedom of expression and wouldn't have been so tolerant of a protest whose view they opposed.

   0%
5. E

   Irrelevant Causality: feared backlash0% picked this

   The government feared a backlash if it did not show acceptance of the

   This invents a totally new subplot that the author was not clearly thinking. It seemed like the author was just thinking that this protest happened to be agitating for something the government also supports. The author didn't need to assume that the government's support was coerced out of fear of backlash.

   0%