Sorry for such a late response, but I wanted to give myself time to forget about this question before revisiting it. With that said, I came back to it today and I was able to nail the right answer, so I think finally understand.
thanks for your help
#9 - Since anyone who supports the new tax plan has no
This question I was super confused if you could explain why all the answers choices that'd be great.
I choose b) don't understand why that's wrong. And don't really see why d) is right.
I went back and diagrammed it
CE ---->~STP----> UE
So the link between Not Supporting Tax Plan and understanding economics is his assumption. But I really still don't the common sense explaination behind this.
Here's a quote from earlier in the thread explaining in simple terms the issue with each answer choice:
Let me know if you still need help! This is a tricky question and I'd be happy to work with you on it.
Hi Jen, thanks for the reply.
When I first read this question, the first flaw that came to my head was that we don't know anything about people who don't understand economics so couldn't it be that they have no chance. In that sense I'm not sure why it's incorrect, like on a common sense basis. Could you provide me with a life example?
I reworked this question and diagrammed
CE ---> ~ STP (missing link) TUE ----> ~STP
So in that sense I assumed whatever would be the missing link and negated the necessary condition.
You mentioned it's the opposite of the conclusion.
C: CE ----> TUE
Answer B:. TUE ----> ~ CE
Is this what you meant?
A) I understand restates the premise, so that's gone
C) He never really said this
E) not sure why this is incorrect either
Let's do a quick recap of the analysis to be certain we're parsing this stimulus correctly:
Let's see if we can determine where the connection broke down.
This is based on the mistaken reversal *STP TUE*. The premises state TUE STP. The correct idea is that if you truly understand economics, then you don't support the tax plan. The incorrect idea is that *if you don't support the tax plan, then you truly understand economics.* How could we describe this error? How could we say that *STP TUE* is incorrect. The author thinks that not supporting the tax plan is sufficient to know that you truly understand economics. This is a mistaken reversal. The author ignores the possibility that there could be people who do not support the tax plan who do not truly understand economics. This is what's in answer choice (D). This statement in answer choice (D) explains how not supporting the tax plan is not sufficient to establish that you truly understand economics.
The reason why answer choice (E) is wrong is that it does not describe the flaw we have identified in our analysis. Answer choice (E) describes the following flawed assumption: "People who have no chance of being elected must truly understand economics" (CE TUE)
However, the author never makes this assumption. This connection doesn't come up. So while answer choice (E) describes a mistaken conditional statement, the problem is that it describes a mistake that the author doesn't make. Since we have to identify the flaw in the author's reasoning, and this is not a flaw in the author's reasoning, this cannot be the correct answer.
I hope this helps!