#3 - Columnist: Polls can influence voters’ decisions, and

[adlindsey]

I'm having a hard time seeing why A is correct. I've seen other explanations, but I would like to see how PS explains it.

[Adam Tyson]

Hey adlindsey, let me see if I can help! My view of this argument is that it boils down to "polls cause a bad influence, so their publication should be banned just before elections". To weaken that, I want to show one of three things (and this is my prephrase):

1. Show that they have some value that outweighs the negatives
2. Show that they aren't such a bad influence after all
3. Show that banning them makes things worse (essentially the same as number 1 here)

Answer A is an example of #2 - they aren't so bad in the last two weeks, the time period during which the author wants them banned. If they aren't causing a problem, and banning them infringes on freedom of expression, then there's no reason to ban them and some reason not to. The argument is thus weakened.

Was there another contender here that you liked better? Was your prephrase similar to mine?

[Esquire123]

Hi there:) I'm still having trouble eliminating answer choice E. I thought E helped illustrate an alternative reason for how it is that voters end up making poor decisions. It's not because of the polls that they're making bad decisions but because they are generally not informed. Help is much appreciated

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Esquire,

There are a few problems with Answer E.

First, the answer is only discussing a comparison of countries with a ban vs. without a ban as far as generally having better informed citizens. It is possible any citizens can still be improperly influenced by polls regardless of how informed they are in a general sense (about the issues, etc.), so it still may be a good idea to ban the polls a week before an election to prevent this.

Also, we don't know how well informed the citizens are in any of these countries in an absolute sense; we only know that the citizens of the countries with the ban are not generally better informed than the citizens of the other countries. It would be a misreading to assume that this implies that the citizens are not well informed. For example, if I tell you that "John is taller than Mike," you have no idea how tall or short either of them is compared to everyone else.

Second, it's important to be clear on exactly what Answer E is saying. By stating that "Countries in which such a ban is in effect do not generally have better informed citizens than do countries in which such a ban is not in effect" this answer is NOT stating that countries with such a ban have less informed citizens. It is possible based on the wording that the countries have equally informed citizens, in which case the ban may still be a good idea.

Finally, it is also important to note that this answer doesn't state or imply that these bans have caused the citizens to be less informed, which would generally be considered a negative outcome and would weaken the argument. Instead, even if the countries with the ban did have less informed citizens (which is not necessarily the case, as discussed above), it could be completely unrelated to the ban, and the ban could still be a good idea for the reasons mentioned in the argument.

[SturdyStudy99]

Hi! I appreciate the explanation of answer choice A, but I was wondering why B is incorrect.

Is B "out of scope?" Or does it just not meet the logical standard of directly weakening the argument (but it feels that it would since polls not being able to affect the election outcome takes down the author's argument)?

Thank you in advance!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Sturdy,

It's not so much that Answer B is out-of-scope as that it isn't sufficiently strong/broad enough to weaken the general recommendation given in the conclusion.

The conclusion of the argument is that a ban on polls a week prior to the election should be implemented. The reason for this is that polls "may distort the outcome of an election" (for example, in a close election), and this would presumably be a bad thing, according to the columnist's argument.

Answer B is basically pointing out that, in an "uneven election" (meaning that one candidate ends up winning by a large amount/landslide), any distortions from polls would not have made any difference in the outcome. The problem with Answer B is that banning the polls a week prior to the election could still be a good idea because it may prevent distortions in the close elections, in which the difference may actually make a difference in the outcome.

Furthermore, since the polls aren't always correct, we may not know which elections will be close and which elections will not be close until after the votes are counted, in which case banning polls on all elections a week prior to any election (just to be safe) may be a very good idea (according to the argument).