- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 705
- Joined: Oct 19, 2022
- Tue Dec 10, 2024 3:07 pm
#110984
Hi Jonathan
I believe that the Administrator’s answer is showing how the argument proceeds according to the politician making the argument. In other words, the politician is (presumably) trying to make a good argument and believes that certain terms are equivalent even though they are not actually identical. If they were in fact equivalent, the diagram shows how the logic of the argument is supposed to work.
However, as the explanation (and Rachael's answer) points out, these very rough equivalents aren't exact, and any answer that shows how the terms don't in fact perfectly match up weakens the argument.
You asked:
Why does the Administrator’s answer analysis indicate that FV and LV are equivalent to “…maintaining value system and way of life”?
I think you mean that Not FB (not fall behind in the international arms race) and Not LV (not lose voice in world affairs) are equivalent to "maintaining value system and way of life.” The politician making the argument is equating them. In other words, the political believes/assumes that in order to maintain their value system and way of life, they need to not fall behind in the international arms race and not lose their voice in world affairs. Of course, that is a questionable assumption.
You wrote:
* C: Weakens by show that these two terms are equivalent and to say that one doesn’t lead to the other breaks down the premise chain
Hopefully, you meant "by showing that these two terms are not equivalent." If they were equivalent (as the politician assumes), then one would lead to the other.
For Answer D, it is not that the terms are being equated in the answer choice. It is that the terms are being equated in the argument, and this answer shows how these two terms are not equivalent, which weakens the argument by breaking down the conditional chain similar to Answer C. Here, "lose influence in the world community" is a synonym for the term "lose voice in world affairs" in the argument, so this answer is stating that LV (lose voice) doesn't necessarily lead to/is not equivalent to Not maintaining value system and way of life. Since the argument assumes that those terms are equivalent, this breaks down the conditional chain, this time between the premises and the conclusion.
I believe that the Administrator’s answer is showing how the argument proceeds according to the politician making the argument. In other words, the politician is (presumably) trying to make a good argument and believes that certain terms are equivalent even though they are not actually identical. If they were in fact equivalent, the diagram shows how the logic of the argument is supposed to work.
However, as the explanation (and Rachael's answer) points out, these very rough equivalents aren't exact, and any answer that shows how the terms don't in fact perfectly match up weakens the argument.
You asked:
Why does the Administrator’s answer analysis indicate that FV and LV are equivalent to “…maintaining value system and way of life”?
I think you mean that Not FB (not fall behind in the international arms race) and Not LV (not lose voice in world affairs) are equivalent to "maintaining value system and way of life.” The politician making the argument is equating them. In other words, the political believes/assumes that in order to maintain their value system and way of life, they need to not fall behind in the international arms race and not lose their voice in world affairs. Of course, that is a questionable assumption.
You wrote:
* C: Weakens by show that these two terms are equivalent and to say that one doesn’t lead to the other breaks down the premise chain
Hopefully, you meant "by showing that these two terms are not equivalent." If they were equivalent (as the politician assumes), then one would lead to the other.
For Answer D, it is not that the terms are being equated in the answer choice. It is that the terms are being equated in the argument, and this answer shows how these two terms are not equivalent, which weakens the argument by breaking down the conditional chain similar to Answer C. Here, "lose influence in the world community" is a synonym for the term "lose voice in world affairs" in the argument, so this answer is stating that LV (lose voice) doesn't necessarily lead to/is not equivalent to Not maintaining value system and way of life. Since the argument assumes that those terms are equivalent, this breaks down the conditional chain, this time between the premises and the conclusion.
