PT148 · S1 · Q19 Politician: Of the candidates running

This does weaken, but not as much as (A). The author presented only one premise in favor of picking Thompson as the best to lead: her opposition towards taxes. According to this answer, her opposition to taxes is not sufficient to prove (i.e. does not by itself guarantee) the conclusion that Thompson would be a good leader. That definitely weakens because it points to the fact that we need to consider other things beyond Thompson's position on taxes. Since (A) and (B) are both attacking the logical force / relevance of the author's premise to her conclusion, we just need to think about which answer choice says something more impactful. Take a real life example; which is a stronger statement: (A) a good LSAT score is not a factor contributing to being accepted at Yale (B) a good LSAT score is not a sufficient condition for being accepted at Yale The 2nd one sound like a true statement! We all know that a good LSAT score does not guarantee you'll be accepted to Yale. But that doesn't diminish the importance of the LSAT score a ton. It just says, "it's not an automatic-in." Meanwhile, the 1st one sounds cuckoo-bananas. An LSAT score isn't a factor in getting accepted to Yale? Why didn't you tell us? (Go to the upper right of your homepage, click on Plans, cancel immediately) So while (B) is saying, "Your premise isn't 100% convincing", choice (A) is saying "Your premise isn't even 1% convincing".

This does weaken, but not as much as (A). The author presented only one premise in favor of picking Thompson as the best to lead: her opposition towards taxes. But we know there's more to assessing someone's candidacy than that. Even if we prefer Thompson's position on taxes (a highly open question!), what if the other candidates have some advantage over Thompson that we haven't heard about yet? This answer creates a sliver of doubt in that direction, but it doesn't say anything comparative, so it's not actually telling us that "Thompson has more questionable opinions concerning important issues other than taxes". It's only telling us that Thompson has question opinions; the other candidates in the race may also have questionable opinions on those issues. Without this answer clearly establishing a comparative advantage for some other candidate, when it comes to some other issue, this answer only creates the faintest whisper of doubt, like "maybe Thompson's position on some important non-tax issues is more questionable than that of some of her opponents". Meanwhile, (A) completely decimates the one premise the author presented, to the point where the author no longer has any evidence whatsoever.

If this answer said that past leaders who supported higher taxes were among our best leaders, then it would certainly weaken. But saying they were adequate is very middle of the road, neither strengthening nor weakening the overall comparison between Thompson and her opponents.

If this answer said that past leaders who supported higher taxes were more hardworking than past leaders who opposed high taxes, then that would somewhat weaken, because it would suggest that there are trade-offs in picking leaders who oppose higher taxes (maybe we prefer their position on taxes but don't like that they are less hardworking than people who support higher taxes). But this doesn't use any comparative language at all. So it's very possible that all past leaders (whether they supported or opposed higher taxes) were hardworking.