- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Jul 06, 2021
- Wed Jul 28, 2021 5:01 pm
#89143
Hi Atan,
Yes, so in answer to this question, I think most adults with children probably on some level vote with their children in mind. Or at least, maybe that's what I'd like to believe! Whether they do or not reality is something I really don't know, and honestly, one doesn't need to know in order to answer this question! Remember this question is asking about the principle behind the argument being made, and the argument is pleading for additional votes given to parents so that they can do just what you're asking about, mainly so that they can vote on behalf of their children.
Now, the argument proceeds in a manner such that a problem is identified and a solution is presented. The problem, according to the argument, is that lawmakers pay too little attention to families, mostly because the children don't have votes and therefore are presumed not to have a say in the democratic process. The remedy is to give the parents extra votes. Now lawmakers are incentivized to pay attention to these families, since they are a necessarily larger share of the votes than they were before. The argument concludes that fair representation would be achieved, and such an argument is true, only if the proposed "remedy," giving parents extra votes to vote on behalf of their children, allows for this fair representation to occur. Thus, E is the correct answer.
As a side note, I definitely understand your critique of the proposed remedy; it's not clear that in practice the children would actually get fair representation by granting their parents extra votes. However, and this is an important general point, you never want to "argue" with the argument unless you're specifically asked to weaken or identify a flaw in its reasoning. We always take whatever they tell us as factual evidence, and if we're asked to strengthen, justify, or identify necessary assumptions, i.e. "help" the argument) we have to presume its validity, regardless of our thoughts on its reasonableness.
Yes, so in answer to this question, I think most adults with children probably on some level vote with their children in mind. Or at least, maybe that's what I'd like to believe! Whether they do or not reality is something I really don't know, and honestly, one doesn't need to know in order to answer this question! Remember this question is asking about the principle behind the argument being made, and the argument is pleading for additional votes given to parents so that they can do just what you're asking about, mainly so that they can vote on behalf of their children.
Now, the argument proceeds in a manner such that a problem is identified and a solution is presented. The problem, according to the argument, is that lawmakers pay too little attention to families, mostly because the children don't have votes and therefore are presumed not to have a say in the democratic process. The remedy is to give the parents extra votes. Now lawmakers are incentivized to pay attention to these families, since they are a necessarily larger share of the votes than they were before. The argument concludes that fair representation would be achieved, and such an argument is true, only if the proposed "remedy," giving parents extra votes to vote on behalf of their children, allows for this fair representation to occur. Thus, E is the correct answer.
As a side note, I definitely understand your critique of the proposed remedy; it's not clear that in practice the children would actually get fair representation by granting their parents extra votes. However, and this is an important general point, you never want to "argue" with the argument unless you're specifically asked to weaken or identify a flaw in its reasoning. We always take whatever they tell us as factual evidence, and if we're asked to strengthen, justify, or identify necessary assumptions, i.e. "help" the argument) we have to presume its validity, regardless of our thoughts on its reasonableness.