Q1 - Editorialist: Advertisers devote millions

[ohthatpatrick]

Sure thing.

It's a Strengthen question. The argument core is as follows:

CONC
The results of democratic elections can't be viewed as representing the unadulterated preferences of the people
(translation: voters in democratic countries have been brainwashed to some extent in terms of whom they end up voting for)

why?

PREM
In democratic countries, there are political strategists who are paid to manipulate public opinion, just as advertisers are paid to instill attitudes and desires in consumers
(translation: advertisers are paid to convince people to buy a product ... political strategists are paid to convince people to vote for a candidate)

What's being assumed? How would you object to this?

I like to frame my thinking by adopting the OPPOSITE of the conclusion.

"How would I make the counterargument that democratic elections DO represent the real preferences of people ... that they HAVEN'T been brainwashed?"

I guess I could just argue that maybe the brainwashing attempts by the political strategists fail. Maybe people see right through them and vote according to personally held values and convictions.

So I guess the author is assuming that political strategists SUCCEED in manipulating public opinion.

The Premise only says that they're paid to manipulate the public; it doesn't say they actually do it. The Conclusion is acting like we know they succeed in brainwashing.

Answer Choices:

(A) "Nondemocratic" is out of scope. Eliminate.

(B) This actually might weaken. If people "see right through" advertisers' techniques, they might "see right through" political strategists' techniques. This sounds like the objection I was thinking of.

(C) If anything, this would weaken. If there are limits on political ad spending, then that would place a cap on how much effect those political ads could have in brainwashing the public.

(D) The actual forms of media consumed are irrelevant. It never said that political strategists use TV or print or both or neither.

(E) Huh. Not what I expected, but clearly relevant to the conclusion, because it's talking about "changing voters' beliefs". That's a good paraphrase for "adulterating the preferences of voters".

This choice is making a distinction between "reinforcing existing beliefs" and "changing voters' beliefs".

OH! Now I see another objection we could have made to this argument. We might have said, "advertisers and political strategists may spend money trying to get me to buy product X or vote for candidate X, but what if I was ALREADY planning to buy product X or vote for candidate X? If I ALREADY preferred that product/candidate, then the political strategists aren't ADULTERATING my preference. They're just reinforcing it."

So (E) is ruling out that objection. It's saying, "No, no, no. Although that may be true in advertising, with political strategists, they ARE actually changing voters' beliefs."

I can see how (E) is a confusing correct answer, since the author was making an analogy between advertisers and political strategists. Meanwhile, (E) draws a distinction between them. Normally, pointing out a distinction in two things that were analogized would be what we do on a WEAKEN question.

But in this case, the distinction made about political strategists is something that reinforces the conclusion. Political ads often change voters' beliefs.

If you focus on that half of the sentence, it's easy to see how it strengthens the argument. It sounds a whole lot like the Conclusion!

Hope this helps.


#officialexplanation

[hyewonkim89]

Will someone please explain this problem?

I'm also having a hard time understanding the wording of the answer choice E.

Thank you.

[aaronwfrank]

Sure thing.

It's a Strengthen question. The argument core is as follows:

CONC
The results of democratic elections can't be viewed as representing the unadulterated preferences of the people
(translation: voters in democratic countries have been brainwashed to some extent in terms of whom they end up voting for)

why?

PREM
In democratic countries, there are political strategists who are paid to manipulate public opinion, just as advertisers are paid to instill attitudes and desires in consumers
(translation: advertisers are paid to convince people to buy a product ... political strategists are paid to convince people to vote for a candidate)

What's being assumed? How would you object to this?

I like to frame my thinking by adopting the OPPOSITE of the conclusion.

"How would I make the counterargument that democratic elections DO represent the real preferences of people ... that they HAVEN'T been brainwashed?"

I guess I could just argue that maybe the brainwashing attempts by the political strategists fail. Maybe people see right through them and vote according to personally held values and convictions.

So I guess the author is assuming that political strategists SUCCEED in manipulating public opinion.

The Premise only says that they're paid to manipulate the public; it doesn't say they actually do it. The Conclusion is acting like we know they succeed in brainwashing.

Answer Choices:

(A) "Nondemocratic" is out of scope. Eliminate.

(B) This actually might weaken. If people "see right through" advertisers' techniques, they might "see right through" political strategists' techniques. This sounds like the objection I was thinking of.

(C) If anything, this would weaken. If there are limits on political ad spending, then that would place a cap on how much effect those political ads could have in brainwashing the public.

(D) The actual forms of media consumed are irrelevant. It never said that political strategists use TV or print or both or neither.

(E) Huh. Not what I expected, but clearly relevant to the conclusion, because it's talking about "changing voters' beliefs". That's a good paraphrase for "adulterating the preferences of voters".

This choice is making a distinction between "reinforcing existing beliefs" and "changing voters' beliefs".

OH! Now I see another objection we could have made to this argument. We might have said, "advertisers and political strategists may spend money trying to get me to buy product X or vote for candidate X, but what if I was ALREADY planning to buy product X or vote for candidate X? If I ALREADY preferred that product/candidate, then the political strategists aren't ADULTERATING my preference. They're just reinforcing it."

So (E) is ruling out that objection. It's saying, "No, no, no. Although that may be true in advertising, with political strategists, they ARE actually changing voters' beliefs."

I can see how (E) is a confusing correct answer, since the author was making an analogy between advertisers and political strategists. Meanwhile, (E) draws a distinction between them. Normally, pointing out a distinction in two things that were analogized would be what we do on a WEAKEN question.

But in this case, the distinction made about political strategists is something that reinforces the conclusion. Political ads often change voters' beliefs.

If you focus on that half of the sentence, it's easy to see how it strengthens the argument. It sounds a whole lot like the Conclusion!

Hope this helps.

Toughest first question I've seen thus far, which is slightly encouraging, since this isn't so bad. To add to your explanation on (C) though, while it definitely COULD weaken it, you have to make the assumption that the caps on political ad spending still leave room for unadulterated preferences. It could be the case that even though these caps are in place, the political advertisements in place, which operate under this regulation, might still be sufficient to create widespread adulterated preferences. At the most I think this answer doesn't do anything, especially with that "many" at the beginning, but taking it at face value and after looking at it again, I can see why that would be your first thought. Makes total sense. They've trying to carve out room for pure preferences, and they almost always throw a weaken AC into a Strengthen question, so this must be the one.

But thanks for pointing out why it's the wrong answer. In my birdbrain thinking, I ALSO tacked an assumption on to answer (C), which was "Well. If they're limiting the money spent on political ads, then they must have a detrimental effect." Still doesn't support the conclusion though, and as I said, it still takes an extra assumption to get to that idea.

A reminder to always be weary of outside information in S&W choices, although they can be very helpful when it comes to alternative explanations.

[LawrenceR550]

OH! Now I see another objection we could have made to this argument. We might have said, "advertisers and political strategists may spend money trying to get me to buy product X or vote for candidate X, but what if I was ALREADY planning to buy product X or vote for candidate X? If I ALREADY preferred that product/candidate, then the political strategists aren't ADULTERATING my preference. They're just reinforcing it."

See, this is exactly why I find strengthen questions so hard. THIS was the objection I initially predicted, when looking in the answers. When I read (E), I thought to myself “Ok good! This is the one that mentions advertisers giving the people what they want”, and then I read “UNLIKE what they do”, it makes me want to pull my hair out, because now I’m frustrated there’s no right answer. I took this to mean “unlike advertisers’ tricks which only get them this, politicians do this whole other thing that actually captures peoples’ attention.” And then that would be a weaken, because it implies that the politicians are communicating with their audience in a way that’s genuine and sincere.