#20 - The people most likely to watch a televised debate between political candidates are the most

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (B).

Answer choice (A):

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

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[Morgan2cats]

Hi PowerScore,

Could you explain why answer B shows the TV debate could help the winner win the election? B basiclly is saying "the voting behavior of another group of people is influenced by reports". I didn't find any clues leading to the winner. Does "voting behavior" implies they would vote for the winner, instead of other candidates?

Thanks!

[Amber Thomas]

Hi morgan2cats!

Let's start by breaking down our stimulus:

Premise 1: The people most likely to watch a televised debate are the most committed members of the electorate.
Premise 2: Therefore, they are most likely to already have made up their minds about who to support.
Premise 3: After a debate, uncommitted viewers are undecided about who won the debate.
Conclusion: Winning a televised debate doesn't help one's chances of winning an election.

How can we critique this argument?

Answer Choice B states: "the voting behavior of people who do not watch a televised debate is influenced by reports about the debate."

People who did not watch the debate a) have not already made up their minds, and b) are not undecided about who won the debate. Therefore, they would have to be reliant upon reports about the debate to know the outcome. You're absolutely right that these reports would influence the non-viewers to vote for the winner of the debate over the other candidates.

I hope this helps!

[Aneesa Roidad]

Hi! I was wondering if you could walk through how you ruled out the incorrect answers for this question. Thank you so much!

[Dana D]

Hey Aneesa,

This is a weaken question, so we want to first identify the author's argument (conclusion) and then look at how the author reached that conclusion (identify premesis). We'll weaken the argument by attacking a premise.

Here, the conlusion is that winning a televised debate does little to help win an election. The reasoning for that is that most people who watch the debates already have their mind made up and those who are undecided are still unsure who to vote for afterwards.

Reading this intially, I see a population that the stimulus didn't account for at all - people who didn't watch the debate. Perhaps among people who watch the debate, there is no impact, but if there are a lot of undecided voters who don't watch the debate, perhaps they can impact the election. If I was to paraphrase, I would be looking for an answer choice that has to do with this population being influenced.

Answer choice (A) doesn't work because it just tells us people are might be more likely to vote, but not how they will vote. The author's argument, that people won't be swayed to switch votes via a debate, still stands.

Answer choice (B) is correct, because it addresses this other population of people who didn't watch the debate and says they actually will be influenced (albiet indirectly) by the debate results. Therefore, the author's argument that debate results are irrelevant is weakened.

Answer choice (C) doesn't weaken because even if there are differences, the author says decided voters won't change their mind and undecided voters will still be undecided, and that can be true even if there are different opinions about who won.

Answer choice (D) is tempting, but it's not as strong as answer choice (B) because it only says people "may" be influenced. The author themselves says winning a debate does "little" to bolster chances, so it wouldn't necessarily weaken the argument to add this answer choice in.

Answer choice (E) basically restates part of the author's point, so that doesn't weaken - decided voters will stick with their initial choice no matter what happens in the debate, so debate results don't really matter. So this is incorrect.

hope that helps!