#10 - Council chair: The traditional code of parliamentary

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken—CE. The correct answer choice is (C)

Here, the council chair advocates for the adoption of an alternate code of parliamentary procedure,
a change the chair describes as imperative. It turns out that the traditional code, though entrenched
and widely accepted, contains certain rules that are causing problems. Because the rules are obscure
and unnecessary they lead to endless bickering over procedural details. This quibbling raises the
perception that the council is not worthy of public confidence, and public confidence is critical to the
council’s success. So, because the traditional code leads to procedural bickering, which leads to the
perception that the council is unworthy of public confidence, which endangers the council’s success
in its endeavors, the council chair concludes that the council should adopt the alternate code.

This is a causal argument, and its flaw is somewhat subtle. The council chair’s problem with
the traditional code is not the entirety of the code, but rather certain obscure, unnecessary rules.
However, instead of concluding that the council should eliminate those unnecessary rules, the chair
concludes that the entire code should be replaced with an alternate code. The evidence does not
appear to justify such an extreme proposal, and the conclusion is flawed for that reason.

The question stem identifies this as a Weaken question. Our prephrase is that the correct answer
choice will likely attack the conclusion as advocating an unnecessarily extreme action.

Answer choice (A): Intermittent use of the rules does not change the fact that the rules cause
interminable bickering and potentially erodes public confidence in the council. This answer choice
does not attack the conclusion that the traditional code should be replaced.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice suggests that there is a potential problem with the alternate
code. However, the stimulus told us that the alternate code has been in successful use for several
years, and the potential problem is that people who have adopted the alternate code sometimes
attempt to use it to obscure their opponent’s understanding of its procedures. There is no indication
that these people have ever been successful in doing so, or that their success would cause problems
significant enough to make the alternate code an inappropriate choice.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice, because it indicates that it may not be
necessary to replace the entire code just to avoid the problematic rules, which according to this
choice will be eliminated.

Answer choice (D): Just because it is not always reasonable to adopt a different code does not mean
that it is unreasonable in this case.

Answer choice (E): Here, the answer choice strengthens the conclusion, by indicating that adoption
of the alternate code will help to eliminate the problem described in the stimulus.

[Basia W]

Good evening,

With regards to this question: Is C the correct answer because it potentially eliminates the need to adopt an alternate code? I chose B, thinking that the alternate code would cause an equal amount of problems.

Best,

Basia

[Robert Carroll]

Basia,

The council chair's argument in the stimulus shows only that the worst parts of the current code are bad, not that the code has to be done away with. The conclusion of the chair's argument, though, is that an alternative code should be adopted. Really, the argument only shows that an alternative code, OR an improvement of the current code, should happen. Answer choice (C), by making an improvement in the current code an option, undermines the chair's argument for adopting the alternative code - why do it now, if we can just reform the current code?

Robert Carroll

[Basia W]

Perfect thank you- I didn't see the argument shift there.

Best,

Basia

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello

So I still don't see the difference between B and C. So isn't B arguing that both the traditional and alternate code have the same effect in that they both are "obscure", wouldn't this undermine the conclusion that it is important to adopt the alternate code, why adopt this if it has the same affect as the traditional one?

C to me seems too vague..... I guess I see that if the revisions to the traditional code are underway, then that would also undermine the conclusion that choosing the alternate code would be necessary.

Thankyou
Sarah

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for asking, Sarah. I'll see what I can do here.

The problem with the traditional code has little to do with how it's being used, but rather how it causes confusion that leads to quibbling. The use of "obscure" here is an adjective - it merely describes some of the troublesome rules, telling us that they are vague, little known or understood, arcane, something like that.

Answer B talks not about problems with the new code itself, but with how it might be used by some people. Here, "obscure" is a verb, describing the attempt by some folks to hide or make unclear to others some of the rules. That sounds pretty crummy, but that isn't what causes the public to lose confidence. It's the quibbling that causes that. Answer B tells us nothing about the quibbling or how to fix it.

The stimulus tells us that adopting the new code is "imperative". That is, it's urgent, even necessary, in order to fix the problem. We can't fix the problem unless we switch to the new code - that is the conclusion that we want to weaken. Answer C does that by telling us that switching is not required after all, because we have another way to fix things, by repairing the old code. If we have an alternative, then adopting the new code, while it might work, is no longer imperative but merely optional.

I hope that helps clarify that for you, rather than obscuring it!

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello Adam

Okay, I think my issue was I was trying to combine the premise and the conclusion and then see what answer choice fits in. I guess with weaken questions its best to just focus solely on the conclusion.

I see the point about undermining the cause now.

Thankyou

Sarah

[reg4315]

Going off of the most recent comment - will the correct AC for a Weaken C/E question always undermine the cause?

Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

Yes, it will, but not always in the same way, reg. There are a number of ways to weaken a causal relationship. You can:

1. Suggest that they might be another cause

2. You show that just once, the alleged cause happened and the effect didn't

3. You show that just once, the effect happened and the alleged cause did not

4. You point out that the two might be reveresed - maybe B causes A instead of A causing B

5. You attack the validity or reliability of any underlying data that led to the causal conclusion. Other tests or studies or experiments come up with a different result, or else there was a problem with the tests or studies or experiments that the author relied on

All of these fall under one, big umbrella, and that is the idea that correlation (two things happening together) is never enough to prove causation. Sometimes, that language by itself can be the correct answer, especially if it is a causal argument with a Flaw in the Reasoning stem. "The author presumed a causal relationship existed based solely on the fact that two things were correlated."

All of these do undermine the claim that the supposed cause was in fact the cause. You got it! Now go get it!

[VamosRafa19]

Hi,

I've read all of the above and I was torn between B and C. I picked B, because of the phrasing of C "revision of the code is underway". To me this wasn't strong enough in the sense of timing, revisions could be underway but take years to implement and the phrasing in the stimulus was "imperative". I see why B is incorrect but could someone chime in on my timing analysis of C?