#15 - There are two supposedly conflicting hypotheses as to

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption—SN. The correct answer choice is (A)

The author asserts that there is not mutual exclusivity in what makes for great national leaders—shaping public opinion or reacting to it. This is based on the premise that leaders who have had success getting programs passed have been skilled in both facets. The author must think that success getting programs passed is a mark of a great leader.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice, reflecting our prephrased supporter assumption above. The author must assume that success getting programs passed is indicative of a great national leader in order to draw the conclusion in the stimulus.

Answer choice (B): The author does not argue that there cannot be one without the other, but rather that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive.

Answer choice (C): The author does not claim that these are requirements to lead; the discussion focuses on "great national leaders," so this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): The author makes no reference to a requirement for a good rapport with the legislature, so although a good rapport would seem likely to help, this answer choice cannot reflect an assumption required by the stimulus.

Answer choice (E): The author does not take the strong stand reflected in this answer choice. The claim is that shaping of public opinion, and the ability to react to public opinion, are not mutually exclusive.

[EmilyC]

The only reason I did not end up choosing A as the answer for this assumption question is because I thought A was more aligned to a response to a justify question. A links the conclusion to the premise that all leaders who've had success with their programs together. So I ended up choosing C as my final answer instead, which I understand is wrong, but I'm a little perplexed how A doesn't justify the conclusion.

[James Finch]

Hi Emily,

Some Assumption answer choices will be both necessary and sufficient for the conclusion, particularly for Supporter Assumptions like we have here, so that shouldn't scare you off. Instead, rely upon the Assumption Negation technique to test the contending choices.

Here, the word "indicative" could potentially allow enough wiggle room to actually avoid justifying the conclusion, although I would agree that my own reading would indicate that it does justify it. More importantly, however, it is necessary to that conclusion, as we can see when we use the Assumption Negation technique:

Getting programs passed doesn't necessarily indicate a great national leader Treating the hypotheses as mutually exclusive is not necessarily a mistake

This works perfectly, eliminating the value of the stimulus's premise and thus completely undermining the argument, meaning (A) is a necessary assumption for the stimulus's conclusion to be correct.

Hope this clears things up!