PT150 S3 Q5 ExplanationPundit: Clearly, the two major political parties

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Not Reverse Causality8% picked this

   confuses the cause of the sharp division with an effect of

   The author thinks that the sharp division has caused there to be close elections. This answer, then, is proposing the objection that, "No, no, author -- it's actually close elections that have caused sharp division." That objection doesn't make much common sense. Why would close elections cause political parties to be sharply divided? Furthermore, this answer is always wrong. By "this answer", we mean one in which it confidently claims that Cause and Effect have been reversed. Why is it always wrong? We're not allowed to act like we know the real story. We're only allowed to object by saying, "Hey, you're failing to consider that what might be going on is reverse causality". We're fine picking an answer that's less certain of itself: "the argument fails to consider that the purported cause might really be the effect".

   8%
2. B

   Out of Scope: good/bad1% picked this

   presumes, without argument, that sharp division is a

   There are no value judgments anywhere in the argument, so the author isn't making any claims or assumptions about whether what he's describing is a good or bad thing.

   1%
3. C

   Not Circular3% picked this

   has a conclusion that is merely a restatement of one of

   This describes one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Circular Reasoning, in which the evidence restates or assumes the truth of the conclusion. This answer is almost always wrong. Clearly, the first sentence of this argument (the conclusion) is not a restatement of the second sentence. This answer describes an argument like, "Cats are better than dogs. After all, when it comes to cats vs. dogs, cats are superior."

   3%
4. D

   Out of Scope: other cities1% picked this

   fails to indicate how what is happening in one city compares with what is happening

   There's nothing about other cities in the argument, so the author isn't making any claims or assumptions about whether what he's describing is also happening in other cities.

   1%
5. E

   Correct88% picked this

   takes for granted that an almost even division in votes indicates a sharp

   Why this is right

   Since this begins with "takes for granted", we can ask ourselves, "Did the author make this assumption?" Since it describes a 2-part reasoning move, takes for granted that X indicates Y we could also ask ourselves, "Does the Evidence part of this answer match the actual Evidence. Does the Conclusion part of the answer match the actual Conclusion?" The premise indicates/implies/entails the conclusion, so we're asking ourselves, "Did the premise talk about an almost even division in votes?" Yes. It says in the last four elections the parties were separated by less than 1%. "Did the conclusion talk about a sharp division on issues?" Yes, it says that the two parties have clearly become sharply divided. Both halves match, so this accurately describes something the author has assumed. We might be taken aback with how boring this answer is. It doesn't seem to really explain why this is a bad assumption to make. It just says, "the author is assuming that her Premise indicates her Conclusion". If we think that the Premise is unconvincing proof of the Conclusion, then it's fair to say the argument is flawed by thinking that the Premise indicates the Conclusion. The test writers seem to have been expecting us to think that the evidence suggests the opposite of what the author concluded. As we discussed in the evaluation, it probably makes more sense to think that the two parties are barely distinguishable from each other, if the votes end up being so close. The answer seems written to imply the ironic move the author made, "assumes that an almost even division implies a sharp division?" [raises one eyebrow skeptically]

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

   88%