I can't find the assumption necessary based on the premise and the conclusion.
Why is it C? Is it because it connects visual image evoking positive feeling in ppmeise to media exposure in the conclusion? If so, I thought at least sometimes didn't fit right.
Could someone please explain this please?
LSAT Forum
3 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- yoohoo081
-
Thanks Received: 9
-
Elle Woods
- Posts: 66
- Joined: March 16th, 2011
-
- noah
-
Thanks Received: 1192
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 1541
- Joined: February 11th, 2009
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q25 - Political commentator: Voters tend
The conclusion of this argument is that laws that want to make elections fair should not allow a candidate to buy more commercials than rivals any rivals can afford (notice my loose paraphrasing - it's really "media exposure").
Why? Because voters tend to elect the candidate who picture evokes the most positive feelings.
What's the gap? Well, what if you're a politician with a really evil-looking face? Maybe buying commercials with your image is exactly what you should NOT do!
(C) addresses this gap by noting that at least some of the time, having more commercials will produce more positive feelings. If we negate (C), and commercials NEVER did this, then the argument falls apart.
(A) is too extreme, or perhaps out of scope. We don't care if there's another reason that elections might be unfair - like if someone spreads false rumors about a rival.
(B) is tempting - but there's a few problems. It's tempting because it seems to address the gap between commercials and becoming familiar, but the real gap is between more commercials and more positive feelings. Also, (B) is too strong - do we need to assume that voters will ONLY feel positive about a candidate if that candidate's image is familiar? What if there's another reason? Who cares - irrelevant!
(D) is out of scope. This argument is not about how much they buy, but about the exposure and the feelings that exposure might engender.
(E) is more information about a premise - we already know that folks whose image evokes a positive feeling are more likely to get elected. It's not necessary--it's too extreme--that we boost the tendency of candidates to lose if their images are not producing warm fuzzies to an absolute rule.
Why? Because voters tend to elect the candidate who picture evokes the most positive feelings.
What's the gap? Well, what if you're a politician with a really evil-looking face? Maybe buying commercials with your image is exactly what you should NOT do!
(C) addresses this gap by noting that at least some of the time, having more commercials will produce more positive feelings. If we negate (C), and commercials NEVER did this, then the argument falls apart.
(A) is too extreme, or perhaps out of scope. We don't care if there's another reason that elections might be unfair - like if someone spreads false rumors about a rival.
(B) is tempting - but there's a few problems. It's tempting because it seems to address the gap between commercials and becoming familiar, but the real gap is between more commercials and more positive feelings. Also, (B) is too strong - do we need to assume that voters will ONLY feel positive about a candidate if that candidate's image is familiar? What if there's another reason? Who cares - irrelevant!
(D) is out of scope. This argument is not about how much they buy, but about the exposure and the feelings that exposure might engender.
(E) is more information about a premise - we already know that folks whose image evokes a positive feeling are more likely to get elected. It's not necessary--it's too extreme--that we boost the tendency of candidates to lose if their images are not producing warm fuzzies to an absolute rule.
-
- mahamansoor
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 12
- Joined: November 12th, 2014
Re: Q25 - Political commentator: Voters tend
I was debating between C and D... I used the negation test to choose the correct answer.
When negated:
(C) Candidate's visual image to evoke personal feelings NEVER increases as media exposure increases
This ruins the argument because it contradicts any need for media exposure.
[i](D) Candidates do not buy as much media as they can afford/are allowed. [\i]
Although this answer choice 'weakens' the argument it doesn't necessarily destroy the argument, a key factor in "necessary assumption" questions. If this was the case, then it doesn't matter whether there are "laws designed to increase fairness" - again weakening but not destroying.
When negated:
(C) Candidate's visual image to evoke personal feelings NEVER increases as media exposure increases
This ruins the argument because it contradicts any need for media exposure.
[i](D) Candidates do not buy as much media as they can afford/are allowed. [\i]
Although this answer choice 'weakens' the argument it doesn't necessarily destroy the argument, a key factor in "necessary assumption" questions. If this was the case, then it doesn't matter whether there are "laws designed to increase fairness" - again weakening but not destroying.
3 posts Page 1 of 1