#11 - Psychologists have found that candidates for top

[Jeremy Press]

Hi sparrrkk,

Yes, I generally agree with your reasoning about answer choice A. I wouldn't change a word, but I would point out another reason answer choice A doesn't have an impact is that the wording of the conclusion is hypothetical. To say that "any" impact blinking has is deleterious is not to assume that blinking does in fact have an impact. So saying it's unlikely to have an impact doesn't really weaken a conclusion that hasn't assumed such impact.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

Can you explain your second to last sentence a bit more please? I have read it 3 times and I'm not sure I understand.

Hi Julie,

Sure! So the conclusion here says, "Any impact this phenomenon [blink rate] has on election results is surely deleterious." Let's rephrase that a bit. It's the same as saying, "If this blink rate phenomenon has any impact on election results, that impact must be deleterious." The "if" part of that phrase is hypothetical. The author isn't committing one way or the other to saying whether blink rates actually (in fact) have an impact on election results. The author is merely saying, by way of invitation, come along with me into this hypothetical and assume that blink rates have some impact on election results. IF they do, that MUST be a bad thing. For purposes of a hypothetical argument like that, it just doesn't matter whether blink rates actually (in fact) have an impact or not. What matters is what the impact would be (deleterious or not).

Consider a simpler example argument: Great LSAT students need to have an immediate grasp on the logic of conditional statements. So, if you want to be a great LSAT student, you must memorize your conditional indicator words.

Could you attack that argument by saying, "I don't want to be a great LSAT student?" Or by saying, "Most students don't actually want to be great students?" No, because my argument only applies to those who want to be great. It's not taking a position on how many such students there are (or even whether there are any such students).

Same with the blinking argument: it's not taking a position on whether any impact actually exists from blinking; it's only taking a position on how any hypothetical impact should be understood.

Does that clear it up?

[menkenj]

Hi sparrrkk,

Yes, I generally agree with your reasoning about answer choice A. I wouldn't change a word, but I would point out another reason answer choice A doesn't have an impact is that the wording of the conclusion is hypothetical. To say that "any" impact blinking has is deleterious is not to assume that blinking does in fact have an impact. So saying it's unlikely to have an impact doesn't really weaken a conclusion that hasn't assumed such impact.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

Can you explain your second to last sentence a bit more please? I have read it 3 times and I'm not sure I understand.

Hi Julie,

Sure! So the conclusion here says, "Any impact this phenomenon [blink rate] has on election results is surely deleterious." Let's rephrase that a bit. It's the same as saying, "If this blink rate phenomenon has any impact on election results, that impact must be deleterious." The "if" part of that phrase is hypothetical. The author isn't committing one way or the other to saying whether blink rates actually (in fact) have an impact on election results. The author is merely saying, by way of invitation, come along with me into this hypothetical and assume that blink rates have some impact on election results. IF they do, that MUST be a bad thing. For purposes of a hypothetical argument like that, it just doesn't matter whether blink rates actually (in fact) have an impact or not. What matters is what the impact would be (deleterious or not).

Consider a simpler example argument: Great LSAT students need to have an immediate grasp on the logic of conditional statements. So, if you want to be a great LSAT student, you must memorize your conditional indicator words.

Could you attack that argument by saying, "I don't want to be a great LSAT student?" Or by saying, "Most students don't actually want to be great students?" No, because my argument only applies to those who want to be great. It's not taking a position on how many such students there are (or even whether there are any such students).

Same with the blinking argument: it's not taking a position on whether any impact actually exists from blinking; it's only taking a position on how any hypothetical impact should be understood.

Does that clear it up?

Yes, thanks so much! I see it now. Your follow-up explanation is very clear, I appreciate you taking the time to respond!

[blaisebayno]

Hi so, I thought that the author was saying that judgements of candidate blinking would be deleterious for the election results of said blinking candidate. Can someone explain to me why it is not saying this and what the sentence means?
"Any impact this phenomenon has on election results is surely deleterious"

[Adam Tyson]

It's broader than that, blaisebayno. The author is saying that if people vote based in part on blinking rate, they will vote against candidates who blink too much, and that would be a bad reason. The result on elections would be to improperly bias the vote against certain people for no good reason. It's not just bad for the blinking candidates, but bad for everyone, perhaps because it might lead to the better candidate losing in some cases. That's bad for the candidates, but also for the people they serve. It would be like voting based on eye color, or blood type, or whether someone is left-handed - foolish, ignorant, and potentially harmful.

In short, it's not about a deleterious effect on the candidates; it's about a deleterious effect on the elections.

[dshen123]

Sorry I just don't get this question:
if excessive blinking isn't tied to traits relevant to governing, then why will effects of blinking be bad on election results?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi dshen,

The "phenomenon" that is mentioned in the conclusion of this argument is not just referring to the fact some candidates blink more than others, instead it is the fact that that viewers of televised debates judge candidates who blink excessively as having done less well in the debate. In other words, the conclusion is saying that if viewers judge candidates who blink excessively as having done less well in the debate and that judgement affects the way that those viewers vote in an election (i.e. they don't vote for the candidate who blinks excessively, even if that candidate would otherwise be a better candidate), that would have a harmful effect on our elections. The idea is that blinking rates shouldn't be used to judge candidates because blinking rates are irrelevant to the skills required for the job.

To weaken this argument, we'd want to show that judging candidates who blink excessively as having done less well in the debate and using that judgement as a factor when deciding which candidate to vote for is not necessarily harmful for elections.

Answer C links excessive blinking to a lack of confidence, and since having confidence is an important requirement of doing the job (as the argument indicates), then judging candidates based on their excessive blinking as an indicator of their lack of confidence may actually make sense and not be harmful.