PT147 · S1 · Q7 Journalist: The new mayor is undeniably

This answer may seem tempting if we are just thinking about this questions as, "What answer can be supported by the paragraph". But if we're focused on the argument, we wouldn't have any interest in seeing "popular". That wasn't part of the evidence or the conclusion. That was part of a disclaimer, an opposing point, a concession (indicated by while). If we negate this, we're saying "it's not generally true that politicians who make assertions with utter certainty and confidence are popular with the public". The author could be like, "Okay, I didn't say it was usually true. I was just saying in this mayor's case it's true. Also, I'm fine even if you want to argue that he's not popular. I could care less. That's not why I think he's not an introspective person." We would never weaken an argument by attacking a concession it's making. A concession isn't part of the evidence or the conclusion, so it's not part of the argument.

If we thought of the first sentence as a conclusion, supported by the 2nd sentence, then the reasoning would look like this: assertions made w/ utter certainty and → bold confidence But this answer is generalizing about "bold people". They are the universal category, so they would be the sufficient condition. a person is bold → The author tells us that this mayor is bold and that this mayor makes assertions with utter certainty and confidence. But there's no reasoning move from one to the other. The author doesn't say, "The mayor is bold. Thus, he must make assertions with utter certainty and confidence". That kind of reasoning move is assuming what this answer is saying. The author just lists two facts about the mayor. If I say, "Jenny is from Pennsylvania. She loves tennis." I'm not assuming "people from Pennsylvania love tennis". I'm just providing two facts about jenny. When we generalize like "people who are bold" / "people who are from Pennsylvania", we're saying at a minimum, Most [bold people] or Most [people from PA]. Some people may have thought the first sentence was a Conclusion and that the second sentence was support. While "undeniably bold" sounds opinionated, it also sounds like something the author isn't planning to support. When authors say "it's a given that X", "as we all know, X", or "it's undeniable that X is true", they are stating it as an axiom we all accept, not an opinion they have that they need to defend to us. And when an author says "this demonstrates that / this suggests that / this reveals that / this shows that", she is making a reasoning move. The evidence we have presented to you over the last few weeks of this trial demonstrates that there is only one conclusion you can come to --- Eddie is the killer!

This flips the illegal lightswitch on what we're looking for. The author reasoned that, if your assertions are then you are certain and confident not introspective While this answer says, if your assertions are then you are uncertain and lack confidence introspective Questions testing conditional logic thinking love to put trap answers that perform illegal reversals or negations of the correct link, and they love to disguise the correct answer (as they did here) by writing the link in contrapositive form.

The fact that this answer isn't talking about "introspective", which is the new and undefined term in our conclusion but is talking about "popular / not popular", which wasn't part of the Premise or the Conclusion should be enough to chase us away. If we negated this and said, "Politicians who are not bold are popular with the public", it wouldn't hurt the argument. It wouldn't help us argue that the mayor is introspective.