#14 - If legislators are to enact laws that benefit

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Moshe,

This actually is going by the book. As written in both our courses and the LRB, this is how the Assumption Negation Technique works:

1. Logically negate the answer choices under consideration.
2. The negated answer choice that attacks the argument will be the correct answer.

Italics added for emphasis.

So, what is occurring here is completely in line with what is expected. Somewhere in the process, it looks like you've grabbed onto the idea of it being necessary to destroy the argument (which usually occurs anyway) and are looking at it like a litmus test. It doesn't need to be that strong--weakening alone is enough.

All Nikki is saying is that a blind application of ideas is never a good thing (because it usually leads to missing certain elements of the argumentation), and that you have to analyze the factors present in order to make your decisions.

Thanks!

[moshei24]

Oh, okay, thank you. I had the wrong conclusion. My mistake.

Thanks for the clarification. I was so rooted in that being the conclusion that I overlooked that something else was the conclusion in the answer explanations.

Thanks!

[hrhyoo]

Hi Powerscore,

This is a bit unrelated but is it really more time-efficient to read the stimulus before reading the question stem? I keep wanting to read the question stem first to mentally prepare myself to read the stimulus with a clearer purpose. I am struggling with time so any advice that could help me improve my issue with time would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance!

[Dave Killoran]

Hi H,

Some thoughts below:

This is a bit unrelated but is it really more time-efficient to read the stimulus before reading the question stem? I keep wanting to read the question stem first to mentally prepare myself to read the stimulus with a clearer purpose. I am struggling with time so any advice that could help me improve my issue with time would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance!

This is an issue we talk about a lot in our books, courses, podcasts (see episode 14 at 1:01:24), etc. In general, we feel reading the stimulus is better, since that's the thing you need to understand the most—and is the most difficult to understand!—whereas the question stem is easy to understand. However, I always mention two things:

1. At the beginning and middle of your prep, reading the stem first will seem faster since that's the easy part, and it feels like it gives you a map. Later in your prep, when you have put all the pieces together, reading the stimulus first is often faster since you are immediately battling with the thing that contains the answer. Good test takers will eventually develop a barometer of the question they ask with certain stimuli, and their clear understanding of the stimulus makes it easy to follow the fastest paths to the right answer.

2. If stimulus first doesn't work for you after trying it for a while, switch over to stem first! You have to do what you think is best for yourself (just keep point 1 in mind when you make that switch).

Thanks!

[hrhyoo]

Thank you for your timely reply, Dave! And as for which part to read first, I will trust Powerscore and try reading the stimulus first!

Thanks again,


Hanna

[Dave Killoran]

FYI: I have added a new original post in this thread, and then cleaned up the remainder to remove any possible confusion. Thanks!

[Coleman]

Hi,

I'd like to be more specific about the connection between answer choice (D) and the original passage. According to the passage "Concerned primarily with advancing their own political careers, legislators present legislation in polemical terms: this arouses in THEIR COLLEAGUES either repugnance or enthusiasm for the legislation."

Answer choice (D) says "Legislators considering a proposed law for which they have repugnance or enthusiasm do not consider the consequences that it will actually have."
Based on the stimulus, the repugnance or enthusiasm for the particular proposal is aroused among THEIR COLLEAGUES, not the legislator(s) himself. Should I regard the legislators and their colleagues practically the same people? Could you clarify what did I miss in the relations between the legislators and their colleagues?

Thanks in advance!

[bella243]

Could someone please explain exactly why A is wrong? I understand why D is a better and correct answer, but A looks pretty good and I'm trying to pin down exactly it is wrong.

To me, A says this: to benefit -> legislators need to become less concerned with their own careers. If the answer choice said "the legislators need NOT be concerned with their own careers," would this make it correct? Because we need to negate this part, not weaken it.

Thanks!

[spikesjb]

Yes, I am also having difficulty figuring out why A is the wrong answer. Doesn't the contrapositive of A also allow us to arrive at the necessary clause that the laws don't benefit constituents?

[Adam Tyson]

I'll try to answer all of your questions in one post!

Coleman: The colleagues of one legislator are all the other legislators, so when one of them proposes something that makes the other ones feel repugnance or enthusiasm, those other legislators will not consider the things they must consider. So yes, you should treat the colleagues as being the legislators!

Bella: Answer A is not necessary because the author might be fine with the legislators continuing to be concerned with their careers. Perhaps they could still pass beneficial laws if they would just stop presenting legislation in polemical terms? Try the Negation Technique on A and you get "Legislation could benefit constituents even if legislators remained just as concerned with their careers." Does that ruin the argument? Nope, because the author could easily agree with that statement by saying "you bet they could, if they would just stop presenting their ideas in those polemical terms!" The problem is not the level of concern they have for their careers, but what they do as a result of that concern.

spikesjb: See above, but the basic idea is that the problem the author has is not with how concerned the legislators are with their careers, but with how they present their legislation. Answer A is a tricky one, but not necessary for the argument to work.

I hope that helps all y'all!