For this question, I think (B) is equally correct. Because if adolescents and adults do not differ in most most respects that are important (but rather minors), then there is no need to suspect that adults cannot be expected to represent the interests of adolescents, right?
#2 - Adults have the right to vote; so should adolescents.
5 posts • Page 1 of 1
The problem with answer choice (B) is that the idea of "important" is pretty vague. Important to what? Also, whether or not they differ in "important" respects, the stimulus tells us that adults cannot represent the interests of adolescents. So if we use the Assumption Negation technique on answer choice (B) and say that adults and adolescent do not differ in important respects, that still doesn't change the fact that adults can't represent the interests of adolescents and, therefore, adolescents should have the right to vote.
Notice the logical leap the author makes in this argument: The author says that allowing adolescents to vote is the only way to have adolescent interests represented and therefore, adolescents should be allowed to vote. The author didn't explicitly state that adolescent interests should be represented but he clearly assumed it. That's what answer choice (C) gets at. If you negate (C) and say that adolescent should NOT have their rights represented, that would absolutely attack the conclusion that adolescents should have the right to vote.
Hope that helps!
What is the flaw with answer choice (A)? I understand that the focus is on the interests of adolescents, but doesn't negating (A) also destroy the author's conclusion? Is it flawed because it is not necessary for all humans beings to have this right (i.e young adults)? If the answer choice stated the right to have one's interests be represented is a right that all human beings should have, would it be correct?
Thanks for the question! (A) is incorrect because the author doesn't necessarily assume that *all* humans should have the right to vote - she just assumes that adolescents + adults should have that right. There are other groups (children, toddlers, babies) who aren't included in the author's assumption. Changing the language to "everyone has the right to have their interests represented" wouldn't fix the flaw in this answer choice, which is that it focuses on all humans while the author is only focusing on adults + adolescents.
Hope this helps!
5 posts • Page 1 of 1