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.