PT151 S2 Q5 ExplanationPolitical strategist: Clearly, attacking an

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Out of Scope3% picked this

   The stories that people are most likely to remember are those that

   Out of Scope: most likely to remember This argument is never concerned with which stories are most likely to be remembered, so the author isn't assuming anything about that concept. We want to see an answer talk about what would make one technique more effective than another.

   3%
2. B

   Correct89% picked this

   Political attacks that are emotionally compelling are generally more effective than those

   Why this is right

   This links together where are Premises end with what our Conclusion is trying to say. The premises tell us ultimately that a philosophical attack is emotionally compelling, and on this basis the author concludes that a philosophical attack is more effective than attacking policy details. This answer reflects that Missing Link in the author's thinking. If we negated this and said, "attacks that are emotionally compelling are generally not more effective", then we would badly weaken the argument.

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

   89%
3. C

   Premise-Pretzel2% picked this

   Political attacks that tell a story are able to provide more context than those

   It's always a trap answer when they take one single claim, like "thereby telling a story and providing context", and then try to make a strong relationship out of words in that claim. The author never generalized about all political attacks that tell a story. We have no idea if she thinks they're better at providing context than those who do not. Suppose we said, "My buddy Ted is dating this new girl Eileen, who is a law student and an avid jogger". This type of answer would say I'm assuming "People in law school are more likely to regularly jog than are people who aren't". I'm not assuming anything like that. I just happened to use the words "law school" and "jog" in the same sentence!

   2%
4. D

   Out of Scope1% picked this

   Voters are typically uninterested in the details of candidates’

   Out of Scope: uninterested Too Strong: typically The author never talked about whether more than 50% of voters are uninterested in policy details. She isn't talking about whether people are interested or not. She's just saying that attacking your opponent on philosophical grounds is more effective than attacking your opponent's policy details. Even if people are interested in these policy details, attacking on philosophical grounds could be more effective because it's more emotionally compelling.

   1%
5. E

   Too Strong: most5% picked this

   Most candidates’ policy proposals are grounded in an overarching

   The word "most" is wrong on Necessary Assumption 98% of the time we see it. Does the author need to assume that more than 50% of policy proposals are grounded in an overarching ideological scheme? Would the argument be badly weakened if only 49% of policy proposals are grounded in such a scheme? Of course not, which is why the author doesn't need to assume that most are. The author is advocating that politicians link an opponent's policy proposal to an overarching ideological scheme, but that doesn't imply that the opponent's policy proposal is grounded in such a scheme. It only assumes that at least some of the time, a politician would be able to link the opponent's proposals to an ideological scheme.

   5%