Q10 - Audiences find a speaker more

[lhermary]

I have a bone to pick with this question.

After we quickly eliminate D and E we are left with A, B and C.

To figure out the correct answer among the 3 remaining possibilities and have to align probabilities with the stimulus.

"Candidates for national political office who wish to be successful in winning votes should use this technique"

A) "No control over which excerpts will be shown on TV"
However, what about the people watching it live????

B) "Many people do not find arguments made by politicians convincing. "
However, this does not mean that it shouldn't be used because it can be still effective on some people

C) "People decide which political candidate to vote for more on the basis of their opinions of the candidate's character."
Same as B, it can still be effective

So the answer is A for some strange reason. What reasoning do I use in order to not make this mistake again?

Thanks

[bbirdwell]

A) "No control over which excerpts will be shown on TV"
However, what about the people watching it live????

Who says that anyone is watching it live? Don't make assumptions or imaginations that don't actually exist in the argument!

Your job is to weaken the idea that politicians should include in their speeches arguments against their own position.

(A) gives a concrete reason for this. If they have no control over the excerpts shown on tv, then there's a chance that the excerpts where the politicians argue against their own position will be shown. That would be bad for them. So there's a good reason not to do it. Doesn't matter whether anyone sees it live -- this is an irrelevant concern.

(B) actually strengthens the argument. If people don't believe politicians because their arguments are one-sided, then a politician presenting the opposing side, as is recommended, would be better off.

(C) says that decisions are based more on character than position. We cannot evaluate this answer because "character" has not been defined, it's not part of the argument at all. Perhaps people believe that candidates have better character when they point out their opponents' arguments, which would strengthen the recommendation. Perhaps not. The big tipoff that this is the wrong answer is that "character" and "position" actually have nothing to do with the original argument, which is simply about including the opposite position in a speech, regardless of what that position actually is. The choice is therefore out of scope.

Hope that helps!

[WaltGrace1983]

Technique of acknowledging the counter-argument and then putting forth your argument is convincing
+
Technique makes speaker sound fair and trustworthy
-->
Candidates for national political office should use technique in speeches

We want to weaken this claim by showing why this
might not be the best idea.

(A) is correct, though not the strongest answer, because it shows that candidates' views can be misrepresented on TV using this technique.

(B) This would extend out to all candidates and has nothing to do with the actual technique itself. What about the people who DO find arguments made by the politicians convincing? Will this technique produce ample benefit?

(C) I think that this actually strengthens a bit. If being "fair-minded and trustworthy" has something to do with "character," then this would help establish the benefit of this technique.

(D) Strengthen. People would view the speaker in a better light with this technique!

(E) Totally out of scope. We don't care about WHO the speaker has to speak to, unless it has to do with the effectiveness of the technique on them.

[hayleychen12]

I have a bone to pick with this question.

After we quickly eliminate D and E we are left with A, B and C.

To figure out the correct answer among the 3 remaining possibilities and have to align probabilities with the stimulus.

"Candidates for national political office who wish to be successful in winning votes should use this technique"

A) "No control over which excerpts will be shown on TV"
However, what about the people watching it live????

B) "Many people do not find arguments made by politicians convincing. "
However, this does not mean that it shouldn't be used because it can be still effective on some people

C) "People decide which political candidate to vote for more on the basis of their opinions of the candidate's character."
Same as B, it can still be effective

So the answer is A for some strange reason. What reasoning do I use in order to not make this mistake again?

Thanks

Same question here concerning A .

Any help !!!!!

[ohthatpatrick]

Just remember that this is Strengthen/Weaken.

The correct answer doesn't need to prove or refute anything. It just has to score a point in either direction.

(A) scores a point in the direction of "You SHOULDN'T use this technique in your speeches".
why?
Because the clip of you saying "Dictator X actually did have some good ideas" is the excerpt that might go viral.

That would be bad. Presented in a vacuum, it doesn't show you taking a nuanced position; it looks to people like you support Dictator X.

Was your question, "What about the people in the live audience who hear the full context of your speech?"

Which is more important to a politician crafting a speech,
whether it will be well-received by the 1000 people attending the speech
or
whether it will be well-received by the millions of people who will only learn about it through the news media?