#24 - Tariffs on particular products tend to protect the

[Robert Carroll]

queenbee,

A missing link between those two things is perfect, and answer choice (A) provides that. It's not enough that people don't support tariffs - if people generally don't support tariffs, but the motivated voters do support tariffs, then it won't do any good trying to get elected by opposing tariffs! It's true that most people agree with you, but most people who care enough about the issue to base their vote on it...might not agree with you.

You could think of it like this. Most people like pizza, I think (I sure do). But most people aren't going to vote for or against a politician because of that politician's position on pizza! It's just not an "election" type issue for people. So if I suggest to a candidate that they make a big deal about how much they like pizza, I'm not giving good advice - that's not an issue that will affect voting.

Even worse...it may be that, though most people like pizza, there's a minority of people who dislike pizza, and dislike it so much that they will base their vote on a candidate's position on pizza. So, if I advise a candidate to come out in favor of pizza, I might be hurting that candidate's election chances. They would be in favor of a position most people like, but the people that would actually change their vote on the pizza issue are all people who dislike pizza! So they'd lose a bunch of votes from the pizza-haters without gaining any votes from the pizza-loving majority.

Answer choice (A) assumes such a situation is not happening, which is why it's an assumption necessary for the argument.

Answer choice (E) does not matter for the argument because we already know most people oppose tariffs. Whether they do that because they know tariffs hurt them is not necessary for the argument.

Robert Carroll

[Dancingbambarina]

HI,

How is B incorrect? If it were correct, it would prove the conclusion, because if they vote for what makes them get re-elected, they would likely be re-elected if they voted?

How is this incorrect?

Thanks!

[Dancingbambarina]

Would B be a good strengthen answer?

Thanks!

[ZenGen]

For this question I was able to quickly eliminate choices C, D, E. So between A and B... I looked at this as an Assumption with a Conditional conclusion. Since I didn't see any missing links with the premises, I started looking for a choice that confirms the necessary condition or that eliminates an alternative necessary condition. A and B were the only choices dealing with the necessary condition of reelection/voting. I eliminated B because it seemed to me to just repeat the necessary condition and went with A but I'm not clear how A is correct.

To me the conclusion says: NOT tariffs (which most people oppose) --> Politician (more likely) to be reelected. Is A saying when negated: Tariffs (which some other people support) --> Politician NOT reelected; like a Mistaken Negation (if I've diagrammed it correctly?). Or is A saying when negated: Tariffs (which some other people support) --> Politician reelected; which would be negating the sufficient condition??
I don't see how or if the two ways (confirm or eliminate alternate necessary) I mentioned above are applicable to the correct answer here, I went with A because I was confident that all the other choices are wrong. But I would like to get some clarity around my thought process with A, and if my understanding of Assumption with Conditionality is relevant here.

Thanks.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Dancingbambarina,

First, if you haven't already done so, I'd recommend reading the earlier forum posts on this question, as there has already been some good discussion that you may find helpful.

Second, it's important to recognize that this is an Assumption question (what some people call a Necessary Assumption question) rather than a Justify question (what some people call a Sufficient Assumption question). I mention this because you stated that Answer B "would prove the conclusion," which would be a feature that you'd be looking for in a Justify question rather than an Assumption question. (As a point of fact, Answer B would not actually Justify/prove the conclusion.)

The conclusion of the argument is conditional. It states what would happen if the politicians voted against the tariffs. Because the conclusion is conditional, whether or not the politicians actually will vote against the tariffs is completely irrelevant to the argument.

Answer B would only help the argument if the original conclusion had been a premise and a new conclusion had been added that stated something such as "Therefore, the politicians will vote against the tariffs." In that case, knowing that "politicians always vote according to what is most likely to get them reelected" (Answer B) combined with knowing that "politicians would be more likely to be reelected if they vote against these tariffs" (now changed to a premise) would support the conclusion "Therefore, the politicians will vote against the tariffs."

[Jeff Wren]

Hi ZenGen,

First, if you haven't already done so, I'd recommend reading the earlier forum posts on this question, as there has already been some good discussion that you may find helpful.

Second, you wrote that "I didn't see any missing links with the premises." Be careful! There is a missing link between the conclusion and the premises, and that missing link is important in answering this question. The conclusion discusses the likelihood of the politicians being reelected. This is completely new information that is not discussed anywhere in the premises.

One of the tricks/complexities of this argument is that it concerns two different types of voting, how the politicians will vote on the tariffs and how the voters (general voting population) will vote in reelecting their politicians in response to the tariff vote.

Several wrong answers discuss how the politicians will vote, but what we really care about is how the general voters will vote in response to how the politicians voted on the tariffs. Only Answer A and B address the issue of the vote/reelection of the politicians.

Answer B mentions the likelihood of politicians getting reelected, but it is focused on how the politicians vote in order to increase their chances of being reelected.

Only Answer A focuses on how the voters will base their votes in response to how the politicians voted on the tariffs.

As to your question, Answer A is not actually/directly showing either the sufficient or the necessary terms of the conclusion. Instead, what Answer A is showing is an underlying assumption that relates to the conclusion.

The argument can be simplified to:

Premise: Most people oppose these tariffs.
Conclusion: "Politicians would be more likely to be reelected if they vote against these tariffs."

One of the underlying assumptions of this argument is that, among the people who oppose these tariffs, enough of them care enough about this issue to actually affect their vote. In other words, if most people oppose these tariffs, but no one cares enough to change their vote on it, then how the politicians vote on the tariffs wouldn't really impact their chance of reelection.

Answer A gets at this idea by suggesting that both people who oppose tariffs and supporters of the tariffs would potentially change their votes based on this issue (and not just the people who support the tariffs).

In other words, Answer A is eliminating one way in which it may have been possible for the sufficient condition in the conclusion to happen without the necessary (if the majority opposed to tariffs don't changed their votes based on that issue).

[ZenGen]

Hi ZenGen,

First, if you haven't already done so, I'd recommend reading the earlier forum posts on this question, as there has already been some good discussion that you may find helpful.

Second, you wrote that "I didn't see any missing links with the premises." Be careful! There is a missing link between the conclusion and the premises, and that missing link is important in answering this question. The conclusion discusses the likelihood of the politicians being reelected. This is completely new information that is not discussed anywhere in the premises.

One of the tricks/complexities of this argument is that it concerns two different types of voting, how the politicians will vote on the tariffs and how the voters (general voting population) will vote in reelecting their politicians in response to the tariff vote.

Several wrong answers discuss how the politicians will vote, but what we really care about is how the general voters will vote in response to how the politicians voted on the tariffs. Only Answer A and B address the issue of the vote/reelection of the politicians.

Answer B mentions the likelihood of politicians getting reelected, but it is focused on how the politicians vote in order to increase their chances of being reelected.

Only Answer A focuses on how the voters will base their votes in response to how the politicians voted on the tariffs.

As to your question, Answer A is not actually/directly showing either the sufficient or the necessary terms of the conclusion. Instead, what Answer A is showing is an underlying assumption that relates to the conclusion.

The argument can be simplified to:

Premise: Most people oppose these tariffs.
Conclusion: "Politicians would be more likely to be reelected if they vote against these tariffs."

One of the underlying assumptions of this argument is that, among the people who oppose these tariffs, enough of them care enough about this issue to actually affect their vote. In other words, if most people oppose these tariffs, but no one cares enough to change their vote on it, then how the politicians vote on the tariffs wouldn't really impact their chance of reelection.

Answer A gets at this idea by suggesting that both people who oppose tariffs and supporters of the tariffs would potentially change their votes based on this issue (and not just the people who support the tariffs).

In other words, Answer A is eliminating one way in which it may have been possible for the sufficient condition in the conclusion to happen without the necessary (if the majority opposed to tariffs don't changed their votes based on that issue).

Thank you for your time and insights in responding to my question, Jeff. One frustrating aspect of this test is getting the right answer but for the wrong reason.
My first mistake was in thinking that "polls" and "reelection" were interchangeable... hence why I didn't see "reelection" as a new element. Also, when I was down to (A) and (B), had I realized that the voting is not done by the politicians I would have eliminated that option more quickly. I was looking at this question as a Defender Assumption, but post #19 has it as a Supporter Assumption and that makes more sense. As does the explanation you gave on Post #25 had this been a Justify question. Stubbornly applying a label or a concept to a problem can be so detrimental and a waste of precious time; I was so sure that the answer had to be about conditionality, but it's more nuanced than that.
My knowledge on some of the concepts is like Swiss cheese, just when I think I understand something I discover many holes.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi ZenGen,

Happy to help!

Assumption questions are often the most difficult question type for many students, and this one had a few tricky elements. This question gave a lot of students trouble, as you can see from the many forum questions posted.

Keep up the studying and try not to get discouraged.

Studying for the LSAT often involves revisiting/restudying concepts that you had already covered. You get good at one question type/concept, then move on to another, only to later realize you have to go back and brush up on those earlier concepts.

[ZenGen]

Hi ZenGen,

Happy to help!

Assumption questions are often the most difficult question type for many students, and this one had a few tricky elements. This question gave a lot of students trouble, as you can see from the many forum questions posted.

Keep up the studying and try not to get discouraged.

Studying for the LSAT often involves revisiting/restudying concepts that you had already covered. You get good at one question type/concept, then move on to another, only to later realize you have to go back and brush up on those earlier concepts.

Thanks Jeff!