#10 - Audiences find a speaker more convincing if the

[LSAT2018]

To clarify would answers (B) (C) and (D) all be considered Strengthen Answers? The recommended technique seems to serve their interests.
I understand that with Answer (A) it would indirectly affect the candidates in some way, but I had a hard time eliminating the other answers immediately because it seemed irrelevant almost. Could I get an explanation for the correct answer?

[Shannon Parker]

To clarify would answers (B) (C) and (D) all be considered Strengthen Answers? The recommended technique seems to serve their interests.
I understand that with Answer (A) it would indirectly affect the candidates in some way, but I had a hard time eliminating the other answers immediately because it seemed irrelevant almost. Could I get an explanation for the correct answer?

The stimulus states that an audience finds a speaker more convincing if the speaker "begins a speech by arguing briefly against his or her position," before supporting it.
Since political candidates do not control which excerpts the news media will report, they have no control over how it will be replayed. The news can replay it in reverse, or only replay the portion where the candidate is arguing against himself/herself.

Therefore, the requirements of the premise will not be met (that it occur in that order). Thus the conclusion that candidates for national political office who wish to be successful,should use that technique is no longer valid.

Hope this clears it up,
Shannon

[bk1111]

I initially chose C, but reviewing, I believe it would strengthen the conclusion. Is that right? My thought process is that if people's voting behavior is determined by a candidate's character and this strategy supposedly makes a candidate more trustworthy, then it would make sense for candidates to adopt this strategy. Or, am I going too far in equivocating between "character" and "trustworthiness"?

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi bk1111,

Yep, I buy that logic. You could definitely see C as strengthening the conclusion. Good work!

[queenbee]

Hi
I chose B for this one but after reading it a second time, does it contradict the stimulus? Meaning, the answer choice states that the candidates views are one sided, where as the stimulus clearly states that they would not be if they used the method recommended?
Thank you

[Esquire123]

Why is AC "E" incorrect? When I read it, I eliminated it because it didn't address anything that was mentioned in the conclusion. However, I don't think that was the correct reasoning for eliminating it.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Esquire123!

Answer choice (E) seems to do nothing to the conclusion--it doesn't strengthen or weaken it. Since it doesn't weaken it, that is why it can be eliminated.

The conclusion of this stimulus is: "Therefore, candidates for national political office who wish to be successful in winning votes should use this argumentative technique in their speeches." The mentioned argumentative technique is starting with reasons against one's position before providing reasons to accept it.

The correct answer choice, (A), states, "Political candidates typically have no control over which excerpts from their speeches will be reported by the news media." If this were true, then political candidates can't ensure that their audiences will hear the reasons against first followed by reasons for; perhaps the media might even only include the reasons against. If this were true, it challenges the conclusion that this would be a winning argumentative technique that candidates should adopt.

Answer choice (E) states, "Political candidates have to address audiences of many different sizes and at many different locations in the course of a political campaign." This doesn't do anything to address the recommended technique. Perhaps if something was added to this answer choice like, " ... and most of these audiences find the mentioned argumentative technique to indicate an unlikable or wishy-washy candidate." If that language were added, it'd suggest that it might not be a winning strategy to adopt the mentioned technique--in other words, it'd weaken the conclusion. Without that, though, (E) is stated in too general terms to do anything one way or another to the conclusion.

[davidp95]

Is C incorrect because it introduces new information that was not mention in the stimulus?

The stimulus makes no mention of character. My thought process was that since they care more the character of the candidate, whether or not they adopted this approach, it would not sway them.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi davidp95!

You are right that character is not mentioned, which can be a reason against (C). It's worth noting, however, that possible that a correct answer choice for this type of question could bring in information that isn't in the stimulus.

In this stimulus, the author makes a particular recommendation about what candidates ought to do in their speeches if they want to win votes. The recommendation is about timing--a speaker should start out by arguing against the speaker's view, and then follow this by providing reasons for accepting the view. This particular sequence in terms of the presentation of material is key. This is why answer choice (A) is correct. If political candidates don't have control over which parts of their speeches are reported in the media, this breaks the sequence and with it the author's recommendation.

Answer choice (C) doesn't get at this particular sequence and its relevance for political candidates, which is why it doesn't weaken the argument. Note also that (C) only states that people vote "more" on the basis of character over exact positions, not that exact positions don't matter. Even if that word were taken out, (C) still wouldn't clearly address the mentioned approach and whether it would be useful for political candidates.