#8 - Normally, political candidates send out campaign

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[jwheeler]

This one was initially confusing to me, as I didn't see the statements building on each other very much. I can't see the second sentence really contributing to the conclusion, and it may be that it's just in there as a distractor. Does this follow?

- Normally sent out to influence popular opinion
- Ads covered wide variety of topics
- Spent heavily to gauge effect on recipients
- THEREFORE, these ads were evidently sent out to test potential to influence popular opinion

Basically the argument I see is that they sent out ads covering a whole bunch of things, wanted to see how it affected those who received them, and these are normally sent out to influence popular opinion. These things combine to tell us that we can reasonably conclude that the ads were sent out to test potential to influence popular opinion.

I think that second sentence was really throwing me for some reason.

[calftemo]

Agreed! Both during the timed exam and BR afterwards, I picked (B) because it just felt like the conclusion! In fact, I thought that the sentence represented in (C) supported the second sentence (in conjunction with the remainder of the stimulus).

Could someone please explain this question and why (B) is wrong?

[Adam Tyson]

The second sentence of the stimulus is there as evidence to support the idea that campaign ads could not have been intended to serve their normal purpose, which was described in the first sentence. "It's usually for this reason (first sentence), but not this time (second sentence)." That information - that they could not have been meant to serve the usual purpose - is intended to support that the conclusion that the ads were being used this time for a different purpose - testing their potential.

Answer B cannot be the main conclusion, because it isn't a conclusion at all! There is no evidence, aside from that sentence, that too few ads were sent out to serve the usual purpose. A conclusion is not a conclusion unless there is at least one premise to support it, and a claim made with no supporting evidence is just a premise (or in this case, a counter-premise - evidence against something).

Look for the ways in which each claim supports, or gets support, from the other claims, and that's how you will determine what is a premise, what is a conclusion, and what is neither (like background info, or something nonessential, etc.)

[cpihl13]

Just for my clarity, is this question considered a "main point" question, because it asks you to find the primary conclusion made by the author?

Thanks
-Cole

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Cole!

Yes, the main point of an argument is its main conclusion so those terms are interchangeable. Any question stem asking you to find the conclusion of the argument is a main point question.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[abby1285]

Hi! I thought this question was really difficult for being in the first 10! When I first read this I didn't feel like any of the answer choices stood out to me as correct conclusions because they all seemed a little separated. I chose E as a guess and then on my BR picked A but was still very confused. I read the explanations above and sort of see how the second sentence could be the conclusion but still don't really see which other sentences are the premises for it. Could someone explain or identify what part of the argument each sentence or answer choice is? Thanks!

[Ryan Twomey]

Hey abby 1285,

So with main point questions, you want to make sure you have identified the conclusion before you go to the answer choices. You do not want to let the answer choices dictate your choice of the conclusion. The sentence that is the conclusion is "the ads were evidently sent out to test their potential to influence popular opinion." The last sentence is the premise for that conclusion. The first sentence is background information, and the second sentence is a premise that rules out the normal purpose stated in the first sentence.

I hope all this helps. The most important thing in main point questions is to decide what is your conclusion before going to the answer choices.

Good luck with all of your studies.

Best,
Ryan

[cornflakes]

The most insidious word in this entire stimulus is "evidently" - thats why I continued to not see that third sentence as the overall conclusion.

[quan-tang@hotmail.com]

I understood the conclusion as B and uses the 'The recent ads for Ebsen’s campaign were sent out to test their potential to influence popular opinion.' as its premise. Becuase they only sent out to test the water, it was not enough to influence opinion.

The second sentence of the stimulus is there as evidence to support the idea that campaign ads could not have been intended to serve their normal purpose, which was described in the first sentence. "It's usually for this reason (first sentence), but not this time (second sentence)." That information - that they could not have been meant to serve the usual purpose - is intended to support that the conclusion that the ads were being used this time for a different purpose - testing their potential.

Answer B cannot be the main conclusion, because it isn't a conclusion at all! There is no evidence, aside from that sentence, that too few ads were sent out to serve the usual purpose. A conclusion is not a conclusion unless there is at least one premise to support it, and a claim made with no supporting evidence is just a premise (or in this case, a counter-premise - evidence against something).

Look for the ways in which each claim supports, or gets support, from the other claims, and that's how you will determine what is a premise, what is a conclusion, and what is neither (like background info, or something nonessential, etc.)