- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 836
- Joined: Jun 12, 2017
menkenj wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 10:44 amHi Julie,Jeremy Press wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:10 am 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!
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.
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?