Q6 - A politician can neither be reelected

[samuelfbaron]

Just wanted to make sure I understood this one correctly.

I arranged the structure of the question into a conditional:

If involved in serious scandal --> ~ Reelected or ~avoid censure

Since we know that the prominent politicians were involved in a scandal, this triggers the conditional relationship. Therefore we know that they cannot be reelected nor can they avoid censure.

(A) indicates this.

[sumukh09]

You've got it. Only thing is that in your necessary condition, there should be an "and" instead of an "or." It should read like this:

Serious Scandal ---> ~Reelected and ~Avoid Censure

[WaltGrace1983]

Just wanted to add some more to this one!

Scandal → ~(Elected) & (Censure)
(Elected) or ~(Censure) → ~Scandal

The reason why it is "~(Elected) & (Censure)" is because "nor" acts as an "and." If you think about this in real life, if I said "you cannot play video games nor go outside until your homework is done" then you wouldn't take that to mean that you can either not play video games or not go outside! In other words, you wouldn't think that not doing one while doing the other is okay! You know that you cannot do both. The same kind of thing is here.

We must keep in mind that this is a must be true question and not a most strongly supported. While they are similar, we absolutely 100% have to be able to prove a correct MBT answer choice. Thus, anything that fails one sufficient condition cannot be a MBT answer choice.

(B) ~Scandal → ~Elected. We don't know what happens when ~(Scandal)! Eliminate.

(C) ~Scandal → ~Censured. Once again, we don't know what happens when ~(Scandal)!

(D) "Initially benefited?" We definitely don't know what kind of benefit they had, if any! Eliminate.

(E) This actually must be false. (Some) Scandal → ~Detection and ~Censure. Why would this have to be false? Because we know that IF you are involved in a scandal THEN you must absolutely be censured. This is, of course, also assuming that "scandalous conspiracies" = "scandal" which it seems to.

[mahamansoor]

e.

(E) This actually must be false. (Some) Scandal → ~Detection and ~Censure. Why would this have to be false? Because we know that IF you are involved in a scandal THEN you must absolutely be censured. This is, of course, also assuming that "scandalous conspiracies" = "scandal" which it seems to.

Hi WaltGrace1983 - I fell for E because the stimulus says "'known to be involved in any serious scandals." This line suggests that that there may be politicians who are involved in scandalous conspiracies but avoid detection - just like E states.

My question is then - if this was a "most strongly supported" question AND answer choice A was not there... could this be supported?

[jwms]

Hi WaltGrace1983 - I fell for E because the stimulus says "'known to be involved in any serious scandals." This line suggests that that there may be politicians who are involved in scandalous conspiracies but avoid detection - just like E states.

My question is then - if this was a "most strongly supported" question AND answer choice A was not there... could this be supported?

I'm not Walt, but if I can chime in here: no, I don't think so.

The stimulus stating that politicians known to be involved does imply that there may be politicians that have been involved, but that those cases are not known. But there may also be no such unknown cases. So nothing can be supported in this area.

[sh854]

what question type is this?

[tommywallach]

Inference.

-t