#15 - Political leader: In this political dispute

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Justify the Conclusion. The correct answer choice is (C).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[mpoulson]

Hello,

I don't follow why the answer is C. I thought the answer was A because the arguments makes the point that the if the other side was unwilling to compromise they would still benefit. I thought this assumed that the political leader's side had a desire to compromise. Please explain.

V/r,

Micah

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Micah,

Thanks for your question!

Please provide a detailed breakdown of how you understood the argument. At the very least, we expect to see evidence that you were able to:

• Deconstruct the stimulus into premises/conclusion.
• Understand whether the conclusion logically follows from the premises, and if not - why not?
• Correctly identify the type of question in the stem.
• Prephrase an answer to that question. (Don't be afraid if your prephrase was off - we still need to see what it was).
• Defend your choice of (incorrect) answer choice. Be specific.

The more you tell us about your method of approach, the better we can help you figure it out.

Thanks!

[mpoulson]

Hello,

The author is basically concluding that they will benefit from showing a desire to compromise and if they fail they will still benefit because the other side will take responsibility for the failure. From my perspective, the author is trying to say this is a win win deal by showing a desire to compromise. This is a justification statement so we must prove the conclusion 100%. I understood this but struggled to see what was wrong with A as opposed to C. If I could eloquently articulate what the benefits of A were then I would but I guessed when I couldn't choose between the two. Yet, I chose A because if this isn't true then it would seem that the failure to compromise would be on them and not the other side. The author doesn't directly discuss the compromise but instead focuses on the desire to compromise so I didn't see initially why C proved the conclusion. The only thing I could see is that if compromises benefits the leaders side then his side is sure to desire the compromise. Nevertheless, this why I was asking for help from you guys. Hopefully, this is enough for you to provide direction for me.


Micah

[Shannon Parker]

Hello Micah,

I can understand the confusion here. I think there is come confusion over what answer choice (A) is actually saying. The question is "The conclusion of the political leader's argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?" Answer choice (A) says that "the political leader's side has a desire to compromise with the opposition." This choice is wrong because it is possible that the political leader will benefit from a compromise if one is reached, or benefit from "showing a desire to compromise" if the other side refuses. The stimulus does not require that the political leader actually HAVE a desire to compromise.

The author gives a conclusion: the political leader's side will benefit from showing a willingness to compromise, and a conditional premise: If we show a willingness to compromise, either A) a compromise will be reached, or B) or the opposition will be blamed for the failure of a compromise and "our" side will benefit. If reaching a compromise does not benefit the political leader's side, then he cannot guarantee that showing a willingness to compromise will benefit them. This makes (C) the correct answer.

I hope this clears it up some.


-Shannon

[landphil]

Hi, I do not get how D is not the correct answer. I still feel like C is off a bit because the stimulus only says a desire to compromise will benefit "our side,' but not necessarily an actual compromise.

D, on the other hand, I think helps explain why if the opposing side fails to reach a compromise, they will be held responsible-- because according to D, a desire to compromise would help the opposing side. And the choice of saying "desire" here in D is good because the last sentence of the question stem starts off with "If they do not" and "not" refers to the opposition responding "positively" to our side's desire. Responding positively could represent a "desire" (the desire referenced in D) but does not have to encapsulate wanting an actual compromise.

Why is D wrong then? And why is C better?

Thanks

[Paul Popa]

Hi landphil,

Great username! I'd be happy to answer your questions. It's very important with sufficient assumption questions to always remember what our conclusion is. In this case, our conclusion is about the political leader's side. (D), however, discusses whether the opposition party will benefit, which is irrelevant for our argument.

The political leader creates a sort of binary situation here: whether we successfully compromise or not, we will benefit. In the situation in which a compromise could not be made, the author makes clear how they will benefit. But if they are successful in compromising, the author never actually makes the connection to how their side will benefit. This gap needs to be filled in the argument in order for the conclusion to be airtight. For example, compromising is not always guaranteed to benefit one side of a disagreement--the opposition can spin it negatively in the press ("It's about TIME they stopped hurting the American people!") and thus the political leader's side might not benefit at all. (C) fills this important gap by directly stating that if a compromise is reached, then the political leader's side will benefit. Now the conclusion is fully justified! Hope this helps!

[landphil]

Hi landphil,

Great username! I'd be happy to answer your questions. It's very important with sufficient assumption questions to always remember what our conclusion is. In this case, our conclusion is about the political leader's side. (D), however, discusses whether the opposition party will benefit, which is irrelevant for our argument.

The political leader creates a sort of binary situation here: whether we successfully compromise or not, we will benefit. In the situation in which a compromise could not be made, the author makes clear how they will benefit. But if they are successful in compromising, the author never actually makes the connection to how their side will benefit. This gap needs to be filled in the argument in order for the conclusion to be airtight. For example, compromising is not always guaranteed to benefit one side of a disagreement--the opposition can spin it negatively in the press ("It's about TIME they stopped hurting the American people!") and thus the political leader's side might not benefit at all. (C) fills this important gap by directly stating that if a compromise is reached, then the political leader's side will benefit. Now the conclusion is fully justified! Hope this helps!

I see, thank you so much!