- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 1819
- Joined: Dec 06, 2013
- Fri Dec 02, 2022 6:38 pm
#98463
queenbee,
A missing link between those two things is perfect, and answer choice (A) provides that. It's not enough that people don't support tariffs - if people generally don't support tariffs, but the motivated voters do support tariffs, then it won't do any good trying to get elected by opposing tariffs! It's true that most people agree with you, but most people who care enough about the issue to base their vote on it...might not agree with you.
You could think of it like this. Most people like pizza, I think (I sure do). But most people aren't going to vote for or against a politician because of that politician's position on pizza! It's just not an "election" type issue for people. So if I suggest to a candidate that they make a big deal about how much they like pizza, I'm not giving good advice - that's not an issue that will affect voting.
Even worse...it may be that, though most people like pizza, there's a minority of people who dislike pizza, and dislike it so much that they will base their vote on a candidate's position on pizza. So, if I advise a candidate to come out in favor of pizza, I might be hurting that candidate's election chances. They would be in favor of a position most people like, but the people that would actually change their vote on the pizza issue are all people who dislike pizza! So they'd lose a bunch of votes from the pizza-haters without gaining any votes from the pizza-loving majority.
Answer choice (A) assumes such a situation is not happening, which is why it's an assumption necessary for the argument.
Answer choice (E) does not matter for the argument because we already know most people oppose tariffs. Whether they do that because they know tariffs hurt them is not necessary for the argument.
Robert Carroll
A missing link between those two things is perfect, and answer choice (A) provides that. It's not enough that people don't support tariffs - if people generally don't support tariffs, but the motivated voters do support tariffs, then it won't do any good trying to get elected by opposing tariffs! It's true that most people agree with you, but most people who care enough about the issue to base their vote on it...might not agree with you.
You could think of it like this. Most people like pizza, I think (I sure do). But most people aren't going to vote for or against a politician because of that politician's position on pizza! It's just not an "election" type issue for people. So if I suggest to a candidate that they make a big deal about how much they like pizza, I'm not giving good advice - that's not an issue that will affect voting.
Even worse...it may be that, though most people like pizza, there's a minority of people who dislike pizza, and dislike it so much that they will base their vote on a candidate's position on pizza. So, if I advise a candidate to come out in favor of pizza, I might be hurting that candidate's election chances. They would be in favor of a position most people like, but the people that would actually change their vote on the pizza issue are all people who dislike pizza! So they'd lose a bunch of votes from the pizza-haters without gaining any votes from the pizza-loving majority.
Answer choice (A) assumes such a situation is not happening, which is why it's an assumption necessary for the argument.
Answer choice (E) does not matter for the argument because we already know most people oppose tariffs. Whether they do that because they know tariffs hurt them is not necessary for the argument.
Robert Carroll