#9 - A proposed amendment would allow the city council to decide that certain city elections be cond

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

[ilana11]

Hello,

Could someone please help me understand why D is wrong? I had it down to C and D and ultimately picked D because I thought the main flaw was the shift from "a proposed amendment would allow" to rejecting the proposed amendment outright. My prephrase was pretty much D word for word: just because the amendment would allow the council to make a certain decision, doesn't mean they absolutely will. I can see how C is right, but I'm having a hard time proving why D is wrong. Is D wrong because conducting solely by mail is not the same as requiring voting by mail? Any help would be appreciated!

[nicholaspavic]

Hi ilana,

Great question. Here the conclusion that "therefore, voting by mail should not be allowed..." is very strongly worded. Note how it allows for absolutely no room for possibilities, choices or judgments. In other words, just leaving the possibility open that the council might do otherwise is not the flaw here. The author went nuclear and said it should never happen. So the flaw is not that choice was left open to the council. It's a even larger issue to this author, and therefore, Answer Option (D) is incorrect.

Accordingly, Answer (C) which identifies the appeal to tradition (aka authority) correctly identifies the flaw. It's a classic flaw that this stimulus argues: accept this claim on mere authority without requiring sufficient justification. Who cares what this author considers to be a sacred right? Who cares about the past? Give us some justification for what is happening now or shut up, stimulus dude!

Thanks for the great question and I hope this helps.

[Catallus]

I picked (C) ultimately but got stuck on this question for longer than I probably should have. The obstacle for me was the fact that (C) refers to "appeal to tradition" as "the only reason" behind the argument's conclusion. But the argument also mentions that "voting is a sacred right in democracies." Why would this not be considered a separate premise, distinct from the appeal to tradition ("one that has always been exercised by voting in person")? I would wager that it's because the two points—sacredness and tradition—seem to be linked together in the argument, rather than presented as separate reasons, but I'm not 100% sure.

[Amber Thomas]

Hi Catallus!

The premise at question is "Voting is a sacred right in democracies, one that has always been exercised by voting in person and not by mail."

The conclusion is "Therefore, voting by mail should not be allowed, and the proposed amendment should be rejected."

The conclusion doesn't really pertain to the concept that "voting is a sacred right," it isn't using this premise as grounds to make their conclusion. This statement isn't made in support of their argument. The reason the author is claiming we should reject this proposal is on the grounds of the tradition that voting has always been done in person. That is the only premise offered in support of their argument. Think "voting is a sacred right" as background information here, as opposed to a premise in support of the argument.

I hope this helps!