Political analyst: Several years

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: inappropriately / legitimacy2% picked this

   Brooks’s joining McFarlane’s government inappropriately gives that government a semblance

   This argument has nothing to do with what effect, if any, Brooks will have by joining McFarlane's government. And it has nothing to do with the author's opinion, if any, on whether Brooks should join the government. The argument is strictly about tallying up the current number of supporters for Brooks in this country.

   2%
2. B

   Out of Scope Comparison: less corruption1% picked this

   there is less corruption in the country’s government now than when Brooks

   This argument has nothing to do with comparing timeframes or administrations. The author is never judging current or past levels of corruption. The argument is strictly about tallying up the current number of supporters for Brooks in this country.

   1%
3. C

   Too Strong: do not overlap8% picked this

   Brooks’s political positions do not overlap with those

   This actually seems to go against the facts that are presented. It would be weird for Brooks to agree to join McFarlane's government if absolutely none of her political positions overlapped with McFarlane's. If we negated this and said, "At least one political position of Brooks overlaps with that of McFarlane", that wouldn't weaken the argument in the slightest. That wouldn't help us argue that Brooks actually has many supporters in this country.

   8%
4. D

   Correct88% picked this

   most people in the country are either supporters or opponents

   Why this is right

   This gets at the False Choice, the imagined binary, that the author was assuming. She was thinking, "Almost all the supporters oppose Brooks. Almost all the opponents oppose Brooks. So I guess that almost everyone opposes Brooks". This is assuming that "Almost everyone is a supporter or an opponent". If we negate this answer and say, "Yo, author -- most people in this country are neither one of McFarlane's opponents nor his supporters", that would badly weaken the argument. That would mean the argument hasn't told us anything about how most citizens feel about Brooks. So she might have many supporters, maybe even a majority of citizens! Suppose we said this argument, "Almost all the baseball fans at Jackson High like Toronto Blue Jays the most. Almost all the basketballs fans at Jackson High like Toronto Raptors the most. Thus, most students at Jackson High have a favorite team that is based in Toronto." That would be assuming that "most students at Jackson High are either baseball fans or basketball fans". If most students aren't, then the evidence hasn't told us anything about the majority of students. It might be that more than 50% of students only watch football and their favorite team is based in the U.S.

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

   88%
5. E

   Out of Scope: unfounded charges1% picked this

   the charges on which Brooks was arrested

   This argument has nothing to do with judging whether it was legit or not for Brooks to have been arrested on corruption. Whether the author believes those charges were unfounded or substantive makes no difference. The argument is strictly about tallying up the current number of supporters for Brooks in this country.

   1%