PT153 S3 Q2 ExplanationCampaign manager: In campaign speeches

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Correct91% picked this

   Ethically questionable acts can sometimes be justified by their

   Why this is right

   This is a really weird correct answer, because it's very weakly worded (unlike most correct answers on Strengthen + Principle), and because it doesn't have a tight language match for the parts of the argument. We were talking about any ethically questionable acts? Not explicitly, but we know that it's ethical to be honest. It's ethically wrong to lie. So it's ethically questionable to be somewhat misleading / somewhat evasive / not be fully candid about all the unpleasant consequences of his policies. Are we justifying his lack of candor based on good consequences? Yes, indirectly. We're saying that he needs to be less than fully candid so that he has a chance of winning, which would allow him to implement an agenda that is very positive. "The ends justify the means". It's worth shoplifting from this store if we're feeding our hungry mom. It's worth telling white lies to voters if it allows you to get into office and do good for the people. This answer only wins because all the other answers lose.

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

   91%
2. B

   Opposite1% picked this

   It is better to fail while behaving ethically than to succeed by resorting

   Someone following this principle would be fully candid and accept that doing so might prevent them from being elected. Better to fail while being ethical than to win unethically. The campaign manager is trying to justify the opposite of that behavior.

   1%
3. C

   Opposite1% picked this

   Legitimate ends obtained through illegitimate means

   This candidate has legitimate ends; he wants to implement an agenda that is very positive. He's trying to get elected through illegitimate means (withholding the full truth from the electorate). According to this answer, his lack of candor would make his eventual political actions "become illegitimate". But we're trying to support the idea that his lack of candor "can be justified".

   1%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match6% picked this

   It is possible to accomplish oneʼs agenda even if one is

   This is very, very weak, so it would almost always be wrong. But this is comparably weak to the correct answer, so it's not the reason it's wrong here. Do we know that this candidate is not trusted? That's a bit of a stretch from the fact that he's been reluctant to reveal all the unpleasant consequences of his policies. Even if we forgave that overstretch of language, this answer would be saying, "he still might be able to accomplish his agenda". But the conclusion isn't addressing whether he will or won't be able to accomplish his agenda. The conclusion is about whether or not the lack of full candor is justified. This answer contains no language that matches the conclusion, whereas the correct answer has a match for "justified".

   6%
5. E

   Opposite1% picked this

   Voters can best be trusted to make good decisions when they

   This campaign manager is trying to justify a strategy in which the candidate withholds some of the details, thereby leaving the voters less than fully informed.

   1%