Q12 - Political scientist: It is not uncommon for a politici

[smiller]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
This is an Identify the Conclusion question which asks for the political scientist's main conclusion.

Break down the Stimulus:
The political scientist first describes how politicians criticize their opponents for presenting ideas in a way that cannot be understood. The "however" in the second sentence indicates that the political scientist disagrees with this criticism—specifically, he claims that it is never sincere. So far, the argument seems to follow a common pattern: an opposing point, then a "however" leading to the main conclusion. We would expect the remainder of the argument to provide support for that main conclusion.

The test writers try to complicate the argument by presenting an additional premise and conclusion in the last sentence: because political mobilization requires commonality of purpose, we can conclude that political agendas will not be realized (won't succeed) if a large number of people cannot understand them.

Any prephrase?
The second sentence still looks like the political scientist's main conclusion: the politicians' criticism of their opponents is never sincere.

If you're tempted to view "political agendas will not be realized if a large number of people cannot understand them" as the main conclusion, consider how it relates to the claim that the politicians' criticism of their opponents is never sincere. We already know that the opponents' political agendas won't be understood, and now we're told that if they won't be understood then they won't succeed. Taken together, that seems to support the claim that the politician's criticism isn't sincere. Why would politicians criticize something that prevents their opponents from succeeding?

Correct answer:
The correct answer is (D).

Answer choice analysis:
A) This answer choice indicates that the politicians' opponents should be considered insincere. The main conclusion is that the politicians' criticism is insincere.

B) The political scientist doesn't claim that politicians are insincere whenever they criticize the manner in which an agenda is presented. The conclusion is only about criticism that focuses on one specific manner of presenting an agenda: presenting it in an incomprehensible way.

C) The conclusion is that a certain type of criticism is never sincere, but the political scientist doesn't actually say that this is a reason to refrain from that criticism. Refraining from criticism, or engaging in it, is an entirely new concept that isn't part of the main conclusion.

D) This is the political scientist's conclusion.

E) This connects two ideas in the last sentence of the stimulus, but it's not something explicitly stated in the stimulus and is not the main conclusion.

Takeaway/Pattern: Identify the Conclusion questions often try to confuse us by presenting multiple claims, such as an opposing claim or an intermediate conclusion. Our goal is to identify the main conclusion of the argument.

#officialexplanation

[katken]

Hello,

I had trouble parsing out premise/intermediate conclusion/conclusion on this question. I was thinking of the two conclusions as "criticism of [incomprehensible exposition of ideas] is never sincere" and "political agendas promoted in an [incomprehensible way]will not be realized." But applying the therefore test wasn't working for me.

Generally, the two parts of the question seem disjointed -- 1) evaluating the sincerity of criticizing opponents for being unclear, and 2) whether unclear agendas will get anywhere anyway.

I'd love some help here!

Thanks,
Katharine

[sumukh09]

We know that the first statement is being refuted by the political scientist because of the pivot word "however" in the next statement. The PS (political scientist) is arguing that criticizing political opponents on the grounds that their exposition of ideas is muddled and incomprehensible is never sincere. At this point you should be asking yourself, "why is this dude saying it's never sincere?" Well, the next part of the stimulus will give you your answer, so you know that part is support for his claim that criticism is never sincere.

"Political agendas promoted in a manner that cannot be understood by large numbers of people will not be realized [therefore] such criticism is never sincere"

That makes sense, right? If they're not going to get anywhere, like you said, then the criticisms directed towards these opponents are unfounded to begin with.

[Nina]

i initially eliminated the correct answer D because i think there's mismatch between the conclusion in stimulus and D. In the stimulus the conclusion is stated as "such criticism...is never sincere", while answer D says "a politician is being insincere". i'm a bit confused, isn't there a difference in saying "a criticism is insincere" and saying "a person is insincere"?

Thanks for the help!

[sumukh09]

i initially eliminated the correct answer D because i think there's mismatch between the conclusion in stimulus and D. In the stimulus the conclusion is stated as "such criticism...is never sincere", while answer D says "a politician is being insincere". i'm a bit confused, isn't there a difference in saying "a criticism is insincere" and saying "a person is insincere"?

Thanks for the help!

Nope there's no difference, the conclusion just uses borrowed language from the first sentence when it says "such criticism is never sincere." What this is equivalent to saying is: such criticisms by politicians are never sincere. So there's no mismatch here.