wj097
Thanks Received: 0
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 123
Joined: September 10th, 2012
 
 
 

Q9 - Claude: To introduce greater public

by wj097 Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:24 am

Hello, I chose (C) and still can't clearly say its a loser when compared to (D)

Lorraine's argument: ppl unwilling or unable to become informed -> referenda will be disasterous

(C) says the ppl would be given more info by the proponents & opponents, which seem to attack the argument based on the fact that ppl are "unable to become informed"

On the other hand (D) doesn't explicitly state what would be, if it was the opposite case i.e., if the general public had power to influence.. we are just given the reason why public has little desire to become informed, nothing less nothing more. To infer otherwise would require some logical leap.

Only possible reason why (D) is better than (C) would be that (D) potentially (if we allow for slight logical leap) attacks the reason for the premise while (C) directly denies the premise which technically speaking does not attack the reasoning.


Thx.
User avatar
 
a3friedm
Thanks Received: 23
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 51
Joined: December 01st, 2012
 
 
trophy
Most Thankful
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q9 - Claude: To introduce greater public

by a3friedm Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:03 pm

We're looking for an answer choice that counters Lorrains argument that the public is generally uninformed on foreign policy issues thus it would be a foreign policy disaster.

Answer choice (C) doesn't really address this. We can't equate foreign agents swaying public opinion to educating the public. In fact, this seems like it would compliment Lorraines argument in the sense that the general public, lacking information, would be manipulated by foreign agents.

Answer choice (D) on the other hand addresses information directly. The reason people don't inform themselves on foreign policy issues is because they have little or no power to influence policy. It doesn't need to explicitly state that people would be more informed with referenda, it just needs to counter Lorraines argument.
User avatar
 
WaltGrace1983
Thanks Received: 207
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 837
Joined: March 30th, 2013
 
 
trophy
Most Thanked
trophy
Most Thankful
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q9 - Claude: To introduce greater public

by WaltGrace1983 Sun Apr 13, 2014 3:03 pm

(A) This says that the referendum would not pose "insuperable problems." However, "foreign-policy" disasters don't have to be "insuperable" to be "disastrous," showing that we could still arrive at Lorraine's conclusion very easily even with (A) being true.

(B) We don't really care about the "foreign-policy decisions." Instead, we care about the voting for foreign policy issues. However, even if we look past this distinction, "some" is too weak of a word. If Claude says, "Well SOME bases for foreign policy decisions are informed" that doesn't do much to refute the idea that the referendum could still be disastrous. Maybe this "some" only refers to 2% of the bases for decisions.

(E) We aren't really sure how this affects the conclusion. We don't know how not "sharing information" would impact if the foreign policy referendum would be disastrous. Also, we don't know if any information will become public or not. This is just very vague and inconsequential.
User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 3808
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4661
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Q9 - Claude: To introduce greater public

by ohthatpatrick Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:23 pm

Let me put a complete explanation up here.

Question Type: Weaken

(this particular type of weaken really needs to play logical Judo: it needs to take the 2nd person's reason for objecting and show that it is perfectly compatible with, if not supportive of, the 1st person's argument)

Claude was arguing that:
France should hold referenda on major foreign-policy issues
(in case you don't know what a referendum is, it's when voters, rather than elected officials, vote on whether or not to pass a law)

Lorraine's objection:
The general public is unwilling or unable to be informed about foreign-policy, so the letting ordinary people vote would lead to foreign-policy disaster.

We need to either show Lorraine how the general public's unwillingness or inability to be informed is NOT problematic ... or we need to show Lorraine who the general public's unwillingness or inability to be informed would NOT lead to foreign-policy disaster.

(A) This is just saying that it's technologically feasible to hold a referendum. This doesn't address Lorraine's point at all. Remember, logically countering Lorraine doesn't mean we just give a new reason why foreign-policy referendums would be cool. We need to specifically address Lorraine's objection.

(B) This bolsters Lorraine's objection that the general public would be unable to be informed about foreign-policy issues (some of the necessary info is classified).

(C) This doesn't deal with unwillingness or inability to be informed. It actually, to me, seems to bolster Lorraine's concerns. Since she believes the public would not have the desire or means to make an informed choice on their own, the public would be vulnerable to being swayed by outside interests (which could presumably be damaging to French national interests).

(D) This DOES deal with unwillingness / inability to be informed! It says that the public is unwilling currently precisely because it has no influence on the foreign-policy decisions. It implies that if the public WERE allowed to vote on foreign-policy decisions, it might have more reason and more desire to get informed (thereby answering part of Lorraine's objection).

(E) This feels like (B). At first blush, it is saying "referendum = bad", so there's no reason to think it's what we want. It suggests, as (B) does, that some of the info involved in foreign policy decisions is not easily transmitted to the general public.

Hope this helps.