- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:00 am
#72935
Complete Question Explanation
Assumption. The correct answer choice is (A).
Our author here argues that focusing on the flaws of our leaders is a "pointless distraction," because we really ought to be talking about how those people got into power in the first place. Because it is an Assumption question, we should be looking for either a gap between the premises and the conclusion (and then prephrase a Supporter Assumption that closes that gap) or else considering a weakness in the argument and prephrasing an answer that removes or reduces that weakness (a Defender Assumption.)
There's no right or wrong approach, and this one can be handled either way. Some people might read this argument and see a gap, because the premises talk about the personal flaws of the leaders while the conclusion talks about how our institutions and procedures allowed such people to gain power, and we need to close that gap. Others will read the same stimulus and react by attacking the argument, saying to themselves "wait, what if we need to talk about those personal flaws in order to understand those institutional or procedural issues?" In either case, whether we view it as a Supporter or a Defender, we should prephrase something like "we don't need to talk about those personal flaws in order to address those other issues." That closes the gap, and that also eliminates that weakness.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. We have in this answer a good match for our prephrase, one which connects the premises to the conclusion and which removes the potential objection to the argument. If you are unsure, try the Negation Technique on this answer: what if examining those flaws reveals something about those institutional and procedural issues? If that was the case, then the argument falls apart, as it would no longer be pointless to discuss those personal flaws. Such an examination would actually be valuable!
Answer choice (B): The author need not assume anything about how common or uncommon the practice of examining personal flaws of our leaders will become over time. The only issue is whether doing so has value or not. This answer is a pointless distraction.
Answer choice (C): This answer might appear to strengthen the argument that we should really be focused on understanding what is wrong with our institutions and procedures, but that doesn't mean the author had to assume it. Is this position necessary in order for our author to be correct? Again, if you want to know for sure, the Negation Technique might help. The negation here is "our institutions and procedures do not ensure that only flawed individuals attain positions of power." If that's true, our author could still be right that focusing on those personal flaws is a pointless distraction. Since this negation does not wreck the logical force of the argument, it cannot be a necessary assumption.
Answer choice (D): Again, to some students this answer might seem to strengthen the argument. After all, if nobody has ever looked at the institutional or procedural issues, then maybe we ought to give them a look? But this is not an assumption required by the conclusion that looking at personal flaws of leaders is a "pointless distraction," and the negation (someone HAS critically examined those issues) doesn't do anything to the claim about looking at those personal flaws.
Answer choice (E): A reasonable reaction to this answer would be "so what?" Does the claim that looking at personal flaws is a pointless distraction require the assumption that doing so leads to greater dissatisfaction? Or could doing so be pointless even if this was not the case? The author does not need to assume this, and negating it has no impact on the argument.
Assumption. The correct answer choice is (A).
Our author here argues that focusing on the flaws of our leaders is a "pointless distraction," because we really ought to be talking about how those people got into power in the first place. Because it is an Assumption question, we should be looking for either a gap between the premises and the conclusion (and then prephrase a Supporter Assumption that closes that gap) or else considering a weakness in the argument and prephrasing an answer that removes or reduces that weakness (a Defender Assumption.)
There's no right or wrong approach, and this one can be handled either way. Some people might read this argument and see a gap, because the premises talk about the personal flaws of the leaders while the conclusion talks about how our institutions and procedures allowed such people to gain power, and we need to close that gap. Others will read the same stimulus and react by attacking the argument, saying to themselves "wait, what if we need to talk about those personal flaws in order to understand those institutional or procedural issues?" In either case, whether we view it as a Supporter or a Defender, we should prephrase something like "we don't need to talk about those personal flaws in order to address those other issues." That closes the gap, and that also eliminates that weakness.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. We have in this answer a good match for our prephrase, one which connects the premises to the conclusion and which removes the potential objection to the argument. If you are unsure, try the Negation Technique on this answer: what if examining those flaws reveals something about those institutional and procedural issues? If that was the case, then the argument falls apart, as it would no longer be pointless to discuss those personal flaws. Such an examination would actually be valuable!
Answer choice (B): The author need not assume anything about how common or uncommon the practice of examining personal flaws of our leaders will become over time. The only issue is whether doing so has value or not. This answer is a pointless distraction.
Answer choice (C): This answer might appear to strengthen the argument that we should really be focused on understanding what is wrong with our institutions and procedures, but that doesn't mean the author had to assume it. Is this position necessary in order for our author to be correct? Again, if you want to know for sure, the Negation Technique might help. The negation here is "our institutions and procedures do not ensure that only flawed individuals attain positions of power." If that's true, our author could still be right that focusing on those personal flaws is a pointless distraction. Since this negation does not wreck the logical force of the argument, it cannot be a necessary assumption.
Answer choice (D): Again, to some students this answer might seem to strengthen the argument. After all, if nobody has ever looked at the institutional or procedural issues, then maybe we ought to give them a look? But this is not an assumption required by the conclusion that looking at personal flaws of leaders is a "pointless distraction," and the negation (someone HAS critically examined those issues) doesn't do anything to the claim about looking at those personal flaws.
Answer choice (E): A reasonable reaction to this answer would be "so what?" Does the claim that looking at personal flaws is a pointless distraction require the assumption that doing so leads to greater dissatisfaction? Or could doing so be pointless even if this was not the case? The author does not need to assume this, and negating it has no impact on the argument.
