#14 - If citizens do not exercise their right to vote

[alstadtjacob]

I'm pretty confused with this one and how the answer is A.

I'm thinking that I had the argument diagrammed in my head something to the like of this:

MP(?): An act or omission by one...

Premise: Organized society would be impossible if theft... (proves the acting in large numbers part)
Premise: If citizens do not exercise their right to vote,... (This premise and the following premise in conjunction prove the an omitting to act aspect)
Premise: Of course, one person's vote can...

I originally chose E because it seems to summarize the main point I came up with. In retrospect, even if my main point was correct, it looks like there might be too much focus on the word dishonesty in the answer choice because the dishonesty in the stimulus was only mentioned in the example. But, I guess I was convinced that my MP was correct, so I looked for an answer choice that resembled said MP, which is why i quickly eliminated A and chose E.

I'm merely assuming the following is how the argument should be set up. Perhaps, is there not a clear way to split this stimulus up in a way that clearly shows which statement the conclusion is in?

MP(?): If citizens do not exercise their right to vote,...

Premise: An act or omission by one...
Premise: Of course, one person's vote can...
Premise: Organized society would be impossible if theft...

1) I'm having a hard time understanding how the last premise has anything to do with people voting. Are the 1st and 3rd premises mostly just elements of distraction?

2) After further consideration I feel as though the second premise could be where the conclusion is implicitly stated ("one person's vote can only make..., but one must consider the likely effects of large numbers of people failing to vote" because "If citizens do not exercise their right to vote,..." But still, even if this is correct, I have a hard time inferring people should not neglect to vote. All we know is what happens IF voters neglect to vote - democratic institutions crumble, valuable social cohesion will be lost (with the contrapostive showing that citizens voting is a necessary condition for social cohesion to not be lost and for democratic institutions not to crumble). Also, we know that citizens must CONSIDER the effects of large numbers of people failing to vote. How does this information allow one to infer that people SHOULD NOT neglect voting, as opposed to merely considering it?

Sorry for the brain dump, but I have nearly endless questions on this LR problem.

Thanks in advance,


Jacob

[tejinder12]

The MP you established is actually the main conclusion. Everything else in the stimulus support and explains why citizens should vote.

Citizens should vote because democratic institutions will crumble, etc.

Citizens should vote because one must consider the likely effect of large numbers, etc.

Citizens should vote an act or omission is not right, etc.

E is not correct because it is a premise. E refers to the last sentence but that is a premise for the conclusion that you should vote. E is also wrong because at the end of answer choice E it says "other societies." One of the premises point to the fact that if you dont vote democratic institutions will crumble and social cohesion will be lost but we can't say that "other societies" will be "destroyed"\

Hope i helped, but im sure theres some flaws in my response.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi alstadtjacob!

I think that the main conclusion is actually absent from the language in the stimulus. Think about that language as saying: (p1) if people don't vote as a whole, society will crumble and social cohesion will be lost, (p2) people would be immoral not to vote because their actions, if universalized, would be socially damaging (and an analogy to theft is made).

From these premises, it seems evident that the conclusion is that people should vote, which is what (A) gets across. Again, it's not stated directly or explicitly in the language, but those sentences are stating the bad consequences that will happen if people do not vote, and that not voting is immoral anyways, independent of bad consequences.

Answer (E) can't be right--it's close to the language of the premise in the first sentence--"If citizens do not exercise their right to vote, then democratic institutions will crumble and, as a consequence, much valuable social cohesion will be lost." However, (E) is not a premise of the argument--it brings in "large scale dishonesty," while the argument focuses on theft and not voting. Further, (E)'s language--"neglect of public duty will be destructive" is predictive. The stimulus as a whole is a neutral, theoretical argument. Answer (E) makes a prognosis that societies will be destroyed, which isn't quite the main conclusion. Rather, the main conclusion is that people should vote (which would be one thing necessary to prevent society from crumbling).

Hope that helps!

[thecmancan]

Large-scale dishonesty is an extension of theft as a single act of dishonesty. This is in the stimulus.

Other societies is in the stimulus as "Organized Society' which would be damaged by theft.



Also, the language of the stimulus is indeed descriptive, yet answer choice A takes a stand and makes a very prescriptive statement. This statement is also based on an assumption that

1. Not exercising a right to vote is necessarily the same as a neglect to vote. There are many factors that affect voter turnout that's not simple neglect.

2. People / Citizens should try to avoid democratic institutions from crumbling and the loss of valuable social cohesion. Again, one can think of some groups of people who are actively dismantling democracy. Some set out to sow social dissent.

So how can we make these assumptions to stand up Answer Choice A? I feel as if AC-E require far less assumptions to stand up?


If AC-A had said - When citizens fail to exercise their right to vote, democracies are threatened. I may buy it for an MSS answer choice.

But for just the main conclusion? Who's to say that the author's main conclusion wasn't to tell people to never steal?

[Zach Foreman]

cman,
I would say your analysis is better suited to a must be true question stem rather than a main point question stem. Answer choice E must be true, but that doesn't make it the main point. If the main point were E, then one would need nothing more than the last sentence. What would be the purpose of the first two sentences? They don't add anything to the "conclusion" and simply would confuse.
Further, one usually argues from the less certain to the more certain or a point of less agreement to one of more agreement. I think more people would agree that widespread theft is bad for society as opposed to widespread voter indifference.
The argument is as follows:
Premise 1: Not voting is socially damaging if widespread. "If citizens do not exercise their right to vote, then democratic institutions will crumble and, as a consequence, much valuable social cohesion will be lost."
Premise2: If an act is socially damaging if widespread then individuals should not do it. (Example: theft) "An act or omission by one person is not right if such an act or omission done by large numbers of people would be socially damaging. "
Main Conclusion (unstated): Each person should vote.

It is very common for Main Point correct answers to be the unstated conclusion of the argument. This is one of the cases.

[thecmancan]

Ok. If I'm reading you correctly, MP questions allow restatements of the conclusion of the argument with limited assumptions?

In terms of degree of certainty of answer choices, can I say that

Resolve the Paradox < Most Strongly-Supported < main point/main conclusion < fill-in-the-blank < must-be-true?

From least to most degree of certainty or from most to least strength of assumptions that is allowable.

So an AC for must be true question can certainly resolve the paradox. But a paradox resolution correct AC need so many assumptions that it cannot be allowed as a must-be-true answer choice.

[Brook Miscoski]

themancan,

I would not say that the main point is a restatement of the conclusion with limited assumptions.

The argument states that it's not okay to omit if large numbers of people omitting would damage society, and the argument states that if citizens don't vote, society will crumble. It follows naturally that the argument's point is that it's not okay to omit to vote, answer choice (A).

I do not think that you should apply the continuum of certainty that you have written out. You can review our groups of question types for the categories where you rely only on passage information--as in this main point question.

A paradox question does not rely only on passage information, as it is necessary to supply additional information to explain the situation in the stimulus.

[SammyWu11201]

How is "An act of omission by one person is not right if such an act or omission done by large numbers of people would be socially damaging." not the conclusion?

Here is my reasoning: The first scenario of not voting, if done by the masses, would be destructive to democratic society, a socially damaging act. Also, shoplifting, if done by the masses, would make an organized society difficult, another socially damaging act. These things are not right.

[Robert Carroll]

Sammy,

The argument is about the effect of not voting. The statement about theft is intended as an analogy - just as a single theft is not significant, but widespread theft is, a single failure to vote is not significant, but widespread failures to vote would be. The author is trying to make a point about the voting case by showing that an analogous argument works in the theft case. An argument by analogy is different from an argument that tries to make a general point by bringing in two supporting specific cases. This argument is not trying to prove something about a general problem with individual action, but the specific problem of that happening in the voting case.

I like to call the difference a "horizontal" versus a "vertical" argument. Let's compare:

A vertical argument: "Teams with good offenses but poor defenses rarely win playoff games. We only need to look at the 1998 Vikings and the 2001 Rams to see that."

In that argument, I am trying to prove a general connection between success and the quality of a team, and my evidence is two specific examples.

A horizontal argument: "The 2020 Bucs will not be successful in the playoffs. Their offense is good but their defense is bad, and, in that respect, they resemble the 1998 Vikings, who also had a combination of great offense with poor defense."

In this argument, I am trying to prove a point about the specific case of the 2020 Bucs by showing that it's similar to another specific case, that of the 1998 Vikings.

Robert Carroll