PT150 S2 Q11 ExplanationPsychologists have found that candidates

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   No Impact on Conclusion9% picked this

   Voters' judgments about candidates' debate performances rarely affect the results of

   The author was worried about the fact that a stupid trait like fast-blinking was costing candidates points in terms of people's perception of their performance at debates. But, if this answer is true, debate performances rarely affect the results of national elections. That feels like it minimizes the author's worry. However, the author's conclusion is a qualified, hypothetical conclusion. When we say "Any offense Sheila took to my comment was regrettable", we're not actually saying Sheila did take offense. She might have. When the author says "any effect this has on election results is deleterious (bad)", the author isn't declaring that it does have an effect, but rather saying "if it does have an effect, that's bad". We can't disagree with conditionals by saying, "The trigger isn't true". You can only disagree with a conditional by accepting the trigger but denying the outcome.

   9%
2. B

   No Impact4% picked this

   Blinking too infrequently during televised debates has the same effect on viewers' judgments of candidates

   This doesn't hurt anything the author is saying. The author would likely argue that "any effect slow-blinking has on how we judge candidates is also bad", because one's rate of blinking isn't a relevant thing to care about when picking someone to vote for.

   4%
3. C

   Correct80% picked this

   Excessive blinking has been shown to be a mostly reliable indicator of a

   Why this is right

   This allows us to argue that "it's okay if people knock off points for fast blinkers", because even though blinking isn't a trait that affects one's performance in office, blinking might be a proxy signal for some other trait that does matter. We were told that confidence was something that was important, so if fast-blinking is a useful way to ascertain "this candidate has low confidence" then it's appropriate that fast-blinkers get discounted in the minds of viewers.

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

   80%
4. D

   No Impact0% picked this

   Candidates for top political offices who are knowledgeable also tend to

   This doesn't help us argue that it's okay to find fast-blinkers less appealing as candidates. It doesn't address fast-blinking at all.

   0%
5. E

   No Impact / Opposite7% picked this

   Viewers' judgments about candidates' debate performances are generally not affected by how knowledgeable the candidates

   This doesn't help us to make a counterargument that "it's okay for people to think fast-blinkers are less appealing". If anything, this feels like it emphasizes the author's concern that people aren't being influenced by important stuff (like knowledgeability) and are being influenced by stupid stuff (like blinking rate).

   7%