WaltGrace1983 Wrote:goriano Wrote:Shiggins Wrote:I have a question with the word "mainly" in the stimulus. It is why I had picked C.
Since it says "if" environmental bill passed -> "mainly" have negative consequences. The term "mainly" does not preclude other consequences. As oppose to it having said:
if" environmental bill passed -> "only" have negative consequences.
I just want to make sure that this is in line with seeing other results as options that could outweigh any neg effects economically, as choice C says. Is this a proper way to go about it since I am looking for clarification on the term "mainly" Since I do not think it is a strong conditional statement.
I have this same question! If you say "it will have ONLY negative consequences," does that preclude having any benefits as well? And can the activist not be faulted in this situation to have "failed to consider noneconomic reasons"?
Someone correct me if I am wrong but if the stimulus said "It will have ONLY negative consequences if it is passed" then I don't think (C) could be right. The consequences of the bill would be ONLY NEGATIVE economic consequences. In other words, there will be no good that comes from this bill and only bad stuff. It sounds like the bill basically sucks.
However, by saying "mainly negative economic consequences" it leaves open room for other consequences, maybe positive consequences. That is why (C) is right! Ill explain...
Bill
will have mainly negative economic consequences → Legislators
should not vote for the bill
The activist is basing his argument on an insufficient detail. The bill will have economic consequences and those economic consequences will be "mainly negative" he says. Okay. Yet what about all the other stuff that can come from this bill? Maybe everyone will get a million dollars from this bill, unicorns will take everyone to work, and America will become a faultless utopia...well except those negative economic consequences that is.
(C) shows this flaw. It says, "hey activist! You forgot a bunch of other stuff! You might want to check on that!"
As for the others...
(A) We don't care about leadership here at all. We are more concerned about the gap between the premises and the conclusion. What is the flaw in saying that JUST BECAUSE there is mainly negative economic consequences that we SHOULD NOT vote for the bill?
(B) Don't care about likelihood. We are talking about what we should and shouldn't do.
(D) This is not a flaw of this argument. Who cares what they usually do. We are concerned with this bill, here and now!
(E) This is by far the most tempting answer choice. Why? Because the "Great leaders" line seems like a premise. Well, maybe it is or maybe it was written that way. However, even if we disagree on whether or not it actually is a premise, the argument never "takes for granted" that IF popular THEN ~sound economically. It says that some great leaders are able to look past the popularity but it never actually says that popular bills are or aren't sound.
I had a question for your reasoning for AC (A).
I recognize that the "great leaders have..." is not actually the premise, but just extra information. But how do you differentiate between what IS the premise and what ISN'T?
I mean if it really was the premise, then (A) would be the correct answer as it attacks the fact that the "premise" does not support the conclusion.
To explain my
incorrect way of thinking:
I narrowed down the argument core to
P: Great leaders have the courage to look beyond popularity to what is sound policy
C: legislators ought to do the same by not voting for this bill.
In this sense, it seems like the unstated premise is that great leaders <=> what legislators ought to do, otherwise, (A) may be correct.
How would I avoid this mistake next time?