Families with underage children

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong11% picked this

   The amount of attention that lawmakers give to a group’s interests should be directly proportional to the number

   Too Strong: directly proportional Unrelated to Conclusion The idea of "direct proportionality" is so extreme that it's almost always wrong (unless we're doing a question type where we want powerful answers). A family with 5 voters has 25% more voters than does a family with 4 voters. Is this author saying that a lawmaker should give 25% more attention to that larger family's interests? No, that's too precise. The author is sad that lawmakers pay too little attention to families with underage children, but she isn't assuming an extreme principle that says that # of voters = amount of attention. Also, this principle would support a conclusion about how much a lawmaker should pay attention. The actual conclusions are saying, "parents should be given extra votes / this would achieve fair representation". They have nothing to do with instructing lawmakers on how much attention to pay.

   11%
2. B

   Opposite2% picked this

   Parents should not be given responsibility for making a decision on their child’s behalf unless their child is not

   This author wants parents to be given extra votes to cast on behalf of their children. So our author thinks that parents should be given responsibility for making a (voting) decision on their child's behalf. This answer is saying, If the child is mature ? parents shouldn't be enough to decide wisely resp for deciding

   2%
3. C

   Too Strong: always Bad Conclusion Match4% picked this

   The parents of underage children should always consider the best interests of their children

   The word "always" is super dangerous when we're asked what must be true/assumed. The author merely is saying that parents should be given extra votes to cast on behalf of their kids. The author never offers any guidance as to how parents should use these votes, so we definitely can't accuse her of thinking that in 100% of cases, they parents should consider the children's best interests. The conclusions weren't instructing parents how to vote; they were suggesting that we give parents extra votes.

   4%
4. D

   Weak Conclusion/Evidence Match9% picked this

   It is not fair for lawmakers to favor the interests of people who have the vote over the interests of people who

   The author does seem to think that the current situation is not fair representation for families with underage children. But is that because lawmakers are favoring the interests of voters over non-voters? Not quite. Families with underage children still have voters in the family (the parents). The argument was just saying that lawmakers pay too little attention to the interests of these families. In addition to the fact that the background isn't really about voters vs. non-voters, the conclusion isn't trying to say "unfair", so it doesn't seem like a good match for either part of the argument.

   9%
5. E

   Correct73% picked this

   A group of people can be fairly represented in a democracy even if some members of that group can vote on behalf

   Why this is right

   This is a Defender style Principle, which is very rare. How might we object to the author's plan? We might say something like, "Wait -- who's to say that the parents will actually use those extra votes to vote the way their kids wanted them to? What if the kids were Bernie Sanders lovers, but once the parents are inside the privacy of a voting booth, they go rogue and use those extra votes for Hillary Clinton? That doesn't seem like the kids are being fairly represented!" This answer is ruling out that objection. Lovably, it relates to the language in the Main Conclusion: "this plan would achieve for these families fair representation". The author is saying that a family with underage children would get fair representation if the parents had extra votes to cast on behalf of their children. Those families are groups, where some members (the parents) would be voting on behalf of others (the underage children). So, yes, the author clearly thinks that parents voting on behalf of children can still be considered fair representation. If we negated this answer, it would be a huge objection: "If some members of a group are voting on behalf of other members, then we can't say that a group is fairly represented".

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

   73%