Tariffs on particular products

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct65% picked this

   Supporters of tariffs on particular products are not significantly more likely than opponents to base their vote for a politician on the

   Why this is right

   Whenever we see a Necessary Assumption answer is ruling out an idea with the word "not", it's worth negating the answer by removing the 'not' to see if it turns into an objection. If it were the case that "supporters of tariffs are significantly more likely than opponents of tariffs to base their vote on a politician's stance on tariffs", does that weaken? Definitely. That sounds like a way to argue that "even though most voters oppose tariffs, a politician could still be wise to vote for tariffs." For a lot of people, voting is complex calculation of many different factors, and their opposition to tariffs might be really far down the list. (Sort of like choosing a law school is a complex calculation of many different factors. It could be true that "most law school applicants don't want to live in a state that charges high taxes", but see if that keeps them from accepting admission to Stanford Law) Some voters are single-issue voters: they care so much about one issue, that they vote based on that. (Pro-life / anti-abortion is one such issue that is famous for being the reason a voter chooses his/her preferred candidate) So this answer, stated positively, is saying "our author is assuming that tariffs aren't an issue where it's way more likely to HELP you if you support it than HURT you if you oppose it."

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

   65%
2. B

   Too Strong: always10% picked this

   Politicians always vote according to what is most likely to get

   The author has not committed herself to this extreme maxim. If we negate this, it will be saying "there is at least one instance when a politician did not vote according to the most likely reelection path". That one instance wouldn't hurt this argument in the slightest. Furthermore, the argument isn't about what did / does happen. It's a hypothetical about what would happen, if someone did something. When I say, "If Marty complimented his mom more, he'd see her smile more often", I'm not assuming that "Marty always does whatever maximizes his mom's smiling".

   10%
3. C

   Too Strong3% picked this

   Politicians should support only general tariffs, since such tariffs would be more widely popular with voters than

   Too Strong: only Out of Scope: general tariffs Opposite Logic We don't know anything about general tariffs. We're never allowed to assume that the "opposite trait" is true of the "opposite category". You can't go from hearing "Black lives matter" to thinking we said "non-black lives don't matter". We only heard that you should not support particular tariffs because they are unpopular. That doesn't mean we should support general tariffs because they are popular.

   3%
4. D

   Too Strong8% picked this

   Politicians should never support measures that favor only a small percentage

   Too Strong: never Out of Scope: should The author isn't generalizing about any case in which a measure favors a small percentage. The author is focused less on how big a percentage is helped and more on the idea that "most people oppose a measure". Most people may support food assistance for the poor, even if that's only a small percentage of the population that benefits. Furthermore, nothing in this argument is about what should be done. The author's argument is purely descriptive. "If they did X, Y would more likely occur." That's not saying they should do X.

   8%
5. E

   Out of Scope14% picked this

   People who would be hurt by tariffs generally know that they would be

   Out of Scope: know tariffs will hurt Too Specific: generally "Generally" means more than 50% of the time. Does it make any different to this author whether 51% vs. 49% of people who would be hurt by tariffs know they would be hurt by tariffs? Of course not. The author doesn't rely on people's accurate perception of how tariffs will affect them. It's just relying on polls that show that most people oppose such tariffs (you might oppose tariffs, even if tariffs benefit you or are neutral to you).

   14%