Q12 - Pundit: People compain about how

[Shiggins]

For this question I believe that the conclusion is saying that the peoples dissatisfaction is rooted from the representatives "doing what they were elected to do." Is it the word "assured" that comes into play b/c I am confused on how A is right. I'm having trouble on seeing how it is taken as the only source.

[timmydoeslsat]

The conclusion is that conditional statement at the end of the stimulus:

When people express dissatis. with their legis. reps. ---> We can be assured that the reps. are doing what they were elected to do.


You can tackle this problem in two ways.
First, is that we know that this is a spot the flaw question.

However, the question stem is even more specific than that as it states "it takes for granted that"

We can use the negation technique here as we essentially have a necessary assumption type question, just with a flaw in it.

Our conclusion is that we CAN be assured that the reps were doing what they were elected to do if people express dissatisfaction with their reps.

Negation of A:

The apparent ineffectuality of legislative representatives is NOT the only source of popular dissatisfaction with those representatives.

Well, if it is NOT the only popular source of dissatisfaction, then how can we be ASSURED that it is?

[Shiggins]

Thanks again Timmy. Very good explanation, I appreciate your help.

[anniekim89]

I understand why A is correct, but can someone explain exact reasons why B and C are incorrect?

[bbirdwell]

The short answer is that those two choices are not REQUIRED for the argument to work.

Note that this is an assumption question. "Take for granted" means "assumes." Assumptions are flaws.

So here's our conclusion:
express dissatisfaction --> reps doing what elected to do

Evidence:
ppl complain about ineffectuality
rep ineffectuality = compromises they must make to do what they were elected to do

What's the big gap here? Well, if the conclusion said "anytime people complaint about ineffectuality of reps..." it would be great. However, it doesn't do that. We have evidence about "complaining about ineffectuality." The author concludes "ANYTIME people express dissatisfaction."

These are not the same thing!!! The big assumption, then, is that dissatisfaction = unhappy with ineffectuality. Period. That's what (A) says.

(B) has nothing whatsoever to do with the conclusion. So what? If key concepts from the conclusion are completely absent, the answer is wrong, because that's what assumptions do: connect evidence to conclusions.

(C) says: "aware of cause of ineffectuality ---> dissatisfied." So what? Is this REQUIRED for the argument to function? No! Whether people are aware has nothing to do with the argument. We can do without this, and the argument works just fine.

(D) again, so what? The question is "what is REQUIRED" in order for us to conclude that anytime ppl express dissatisfaction, politicians are doing their job?

(E) This does not have to be true in order for the argument to work. People can be dissatisfied with everyone on the planet if they want to, and it won't change this argument a bit.

[jamiejames]

Oh no I thought this was just a flaw question, I didn't even think of it as a necessary assumption question, that makes it so much easier.

[seychelles1718]

I knew I had to look for the flaw but I didnt know this question is asking for NECESSARY assumption. So whenever I see flaw questions with "takes for granted.." and "fails to consider," should I look for a necessary assumption?

Also, is D a premise booster?

Thank you so much!

[maryadkins]

I knew I had to look for the flaw but I didnt know this question is asking for NECESSARY assumption. So whenever I see flaw questions with "takes for granted.." and "fails to consider," should I look for a necessary assumption?

Yes!

Also, is D a premise booster?

Mmm. Maybe more like a red herring connecting the conclusion (dissatisfaction) to a part of the premise that isn't actually important (compromising). The point of the premise is that people are mad about things being ineffectual. If compromises also cause people to be dissatisfied for other reasons, fine, but we don't need that to be true.