#9 - Political organizer: Our group needs to assemble at

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[lanereuden]

What’s wrong with e? When we hear winning should we automatically assume that winning is more important than being informed? Ie the reason c is correct here

[lanereuden]

Apparently e is a premise, but I could see equally as well as conclsuon. I definitely understand that that the since in the first sentence denotes there will be corresponding conclusion (maybe not main, although in this case, it is main). I just have trouble ruling out the idea that the first half of first sentence is intermediate conclusion.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi lanereuden,

One way to think about conclusions/main points is to see which part of the argument is supporting and which part is supported. Remember that the overall conclusion will not support anything else, but will be supported by at least one part of the argument.

Which way makes more sense:

In order to fully inform the public, at least 30 people need to volunteer. Therefore, if winning the election is possible, they need at least 30 volunteers.

If winning the election is possible, they need at least 30 volunteers. Therefore, to fully inform the public they need at least 30 volunteers.

The first example is a way to think about answer choice (C) while the second gives a way to think about answer choice (E). You can see how answer choice (C) shows the conclusion supported by the fact that 30 people are needed to fully inform the public which is required for the candidate to win. Answer choice (E) supports the ultimate conclusion of answer choice (C), so it can't be the main point.

Hope that helps!
Rachael

[cacao825]

Hello,
I'm having trouble with the part that says "we simply cannot afford to pay people for this work."
From this I implied that they can't get 30 people for the campaign.
Is that statement not enough to infer it?

Can't afford -> can't get 30 people -> can't inform public -> can't win

Therefore I chose A.

Are we to assume that although they can't pay for people to work for the campaign, they can still get 30 people by means of volunteer, non-paid, etc.?

[Robert Carroll]

cacao,

The main point is to prove that we need 30 volunteers. That statement about being unable to pay 30 people is why the organizer needs 30 volunteers, who wouldn't have to be paid.

No assumption necessary - the entire point of the passage is that we need 30 volunteers.

Robert Carroll