#21 - In order to pressure the government of Country S

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello

So I was in b/w answer choices B and D.

The conclusion of the argument is that: the telecomm. companies in Country R want their companies to be exempt from the ban.

Premise: b/c when telecommunications is widely available to the public (country s) the country will not remain oppressed.

So when I negated D it read: of all the exports that could be sent to Country S telecommunications equipment would NOT be the most effective in helping citizens of S oppose the country's repressive government. I thought this would weaken the conclusion b/c country R is arguing that their telecomm. companies should be exempt from the ban because their
equipment can help country S against a repressive government. It lessons the important of their equipment.

I understood why D also makes sense, but to me C directly weakened the contusion.

Thankyou
Sarah

[David Boyle]

Hello

So I was in b/w answer choices B and D.

The conclusion of the argument is that: the telecomm. companies in Country R want their companies to be exempt from the ban.

Premise: b/c when telecommunications is widely available to the public (country s) the country will not remain oppressed.

So when I negated D it read: of all the exports that could be sent to Country S telecommunications equipment would NOT be the most effective in helping citizens of S oppose the country's repressive government. I thought this would weaken the conclusion b/c country R is arguing that their telecomm. companies should be exempt from the ban because their
equipment can help country S against a repressive government. It lessons the important of their equipment.

I understood why D also makes sense, but to me C directly weakened the contusion.

Thankyou
Sarah

Hello,

You mention answer choice (C), but I do not see how that answer helps out because that answer focuses on legislative majorities, whereas the conclusion of the argument is about the connection between the availability of telecommunications devices and whether a government repression. The manufacturers are saying these machines will help break that repression; whether or not the legislators agree doesn't affect the manufacturer's view.

As for answer choice (D), even if telecommunication devices are not the single most effective export, they could still be effective. So answer choice (D) is actually not very helpful.

David

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello David,

I meant B, sorry for the typo. Too me answer choice D made more sense to me when I negated it.

Thankyou
Sarah

[Nikki Siclunov]

Sarah,

I'm actually not clear which answer choices you're asking about, particularly since (B) is the correct answer choice. Let's talk about (B) and (D):

Answer choice (B) states an assumption that you should have prephrased before even examining the answers. The telecom companies argue that they should be exempt from the ban, because when telecom equipment is widely available (emphasis mine), repression becomes impossible. This assumes, of course, that such equipment will be widely available to the public. Just because whiskey can legally be imported into North Korea doesn't mean that it's widely available to the public Same problem here. If you negate (B) - the telecom equipment will be available only to top gov't officials - the conclusion falls apart. Thus, answer choice (B) is an assumption upon which the conclusion depends.

By contrast, negating (D) would be this:

Of all exports that could be sent to S, telecom equipment is not the most effective means of helping citizens of S oppose the country's repressive government.

Alright, so there are other exports (food, perhaps?) that would be even more effective in fighting repression (a hungry populace is usually not in the mood to fight repressive regimes). So what? If that's true, maybe those other exports should be exempt from the ban too! The telecom manufacturers didn't argue that they should be the only ones exempt from the ban, which is why the logical opposite of answer choice (D) has no bearing on their argument.

Hope this clears things up!

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello Nikki

Okay, this really helps. So D is basically irrelevant b/c its not addressing how the telecomm equipment will be "widely available" .

Thankyou very much for your reply
Sarah

[nicizle]

I narrowed the answer choices down to B and E, but I'm not really seeing how E isn't a required assumption. The entire argument hinges on the idea of pressure via banning exports, and the assumption that these bans will somehow have some effect on government repression.

The negation of E is as follows: Without pressure from country R, the government of S would be able to continue repressing its inhabitants indefinitely. How is this not a required assumption? The argument assumes that this pressure (through telecommunication bans) will affect repression.

Please help.

[Adam Tyson]

it looks like you didn't negate answer E there, nicizle, but just repeated it. The negation would be "Even without pressure from Country R, the government of S would NOT be able to continue repressing its citizens indefinitely." In other words, we don't need to pressure them, they'll eventually come around on their own. Maybe not right away, but some day.

This has no impact on the argument made by the manufacturers of telecommunications equipment that they should be granted an exception. The manufacturers want to be granted an exception so their products can become widely available, helping to speed the end of repression along. They must be assuming that their products would become widely available, and not just used by the repressive government. They don't have to assume anything about what would or would not happen if there was no pressure and no ban on exports. They just want to ensure that the ban doesn't apply to them.