#13 - Few politicians will support legislation that

[alexandraf]

Hi!

I am having trouble differentiating between A and B. I chose A: I thought this made the most sense since the August Frenson case is evidence used to show that politicians support legislation that fits their agenda. If the evidence in this case is false, then this would guarantee the falsity of the conclusion "Few politicians will support legislation that conflicts with their own self-interest".

I do not understand how B is correct.

Thank you for your help!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Alexandra!

The main conclusion of this argument is the last sentence, that if measures conflicting with the self-interest of politicians are to be enacted, they must result from direct popular vote rather than from legislative action. Why should we believe this statement? Because few politicians will support legislation that conflicts with their own self-interest, as illustrated by the case of August Frenson. So the case of August Frenson is a specific example to illustrate the general assertion that few politicians will support legislation that conflicts with their own self-interest, which is used to support the statement that such measures must result from popular vote rather than legislative action.

If the case of August Frenson was false--if it were not true that he consistently opposed measures limiting the advantage incumbents enjoy over their challengers--this would not be enough to guarantee the falsity of the author's conclusion. It might just mean that August Frenson was in fact one of the few politicians who will support legislation that conflicts with their own self-interest. But the example of one individual politician is not enough to guarantee the truth or the falsity of the statement in the first sentence, nor is it enough to guarantee the truth or the falsity of the author's main conclusion which is, in fact, the last sentence.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[annier73]

Hello! I'm wondering why C) is incorrect as opposed to B)? I thought C) would be correct since it is essential to know Augusts' involvement in the measures. It says he himself was in office during the 8 years he opposed the measures limiting the advantages of incumbents. Would this make August an incumbent and therefore explain that he is not supporting the legislation since it conflicts with his own self-interest?

I think I can see why B) is correct -- if you omit the example regarding August, you still have a logical stimulus that follows from "few politicians will support legislations ... Therefore, if such measures are to be enacted ..." I mistakenly thought that "measures" in the conclusion was only referring to the measures from August's example. However, I believe the conclusion can still follow logically when you just refer to the first premise. Please let me know if I am incorrect in my thinking! Thank you.

[katehos]

Hi annier73!

Let's start by discussing answer choice (C). This answer choice describes the role of the August Frenson case as "essential background information" about a "measure being advocated." One of the first issues with this answer choice is that there is no specific measure being advocated. Since there is no measure being advocated in the argument, it's not possible for the Frenson example to be used as background information for that measure. Additionally, (C) refers to the Frenson case as "essential", which, as you mentioned, is not the case! The conclusion can still follow from the first premise without this example.

Thus, (B) is a much better answer since it characterizes the Frenson case as an "example" illustrating the "generalization" about few politicians supporting legislation that conflicts with their own self-interest (since, as you mentioned, this is an example of an incumbent opposing measures that conflict with his own self-interest)!

I hope this helps
Kate