#5 - Political strategist: Clearly, attacking an opposing

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[Morehouse20]

Had a question about this problem, I chose C. I see why the answer is B but I still feel it can be C as well. Wondering exactly why C. is wrong?

[Jay Donnell]

Hi Morehouse20!

Like a large number of Assumption questions, success here depends on us finding the "gap" between the relevant premise(s) and the conclusion.

The steps of reading the stimulus in an Assumption question should always be as follows:

1) Find the main conclusion and reject it (it is, after all, based on as assumption so we know it's invalid)
2) Find the relevant premises and trust them
3) Find the gap/flaw/difference between major terms across the premise/conclusion divide.

The argument concludes that attacking an opponent on philosophical grounds is generally more effective than attacking the details of their policy proposals. This idea is used in the conclusion but never anywhere in the given evidence, so that concept is the reason why the argument is currently flawed, and is almost guaranteed to be what the right answer will cover.

The premises talk of what attacking philosophy does and attacking policy doesn't, that it allows for more context and allows a story to be told. The stimulus ends with the author stating that this sort of attack is emotionally compelling. Since we have no idea if being emotionally compelling has anything to do with a political attack being effective, this is the flaw behind the argument, and we should be pre-phrasing a connection between these two terms, which happens in the correct response of B.

The problem with C, is that it acts like a connection between story and context is what the argument needed to assume, when it was actually between being emotionally compelling and generally effective. The argument states as a premise that philosophical attacks, through linking the opponent's proposals to an ideological scheme, provide context and tell a story. What we are never told is that other political attacks (say on policy, for example) don't do those things. So, even if those attacks that tell a story don't always provide more context than those that do not (this is basically the negation of C), we still know that they do provide context, which still amounts to being emotionally compelling.

So, the argument can survive with the negation of answer choice C. But, if we run the Assumption Negation Technique on B, knowing that emotionally compelling arguments are not generally more effective completely kills the argument, verifying B as the correct response. he argument falls apart.

Hope that helps!

[Morehouse20]

Thank you for that, I need to study the ANT more!

[arvinm123]

Can someone please explain why answer A is wrong? I correctly chose B because upon negating it, it was clear that it would weaken the argument and seemed like the best answer. But I am having trouble ruling A out completely and I am not sure why... it just seems like the next best answer

Any insight would be appreciated

[ealanclos]

Hello,

I originally selected B, but I then changed my answer to E. After reading Jay's description above, I see why E is the assumption of the argument, but could someone help me understand why E is not also an assumption of the argument? In the premises, the author states that "a philosophical attack links an opponent's policy proposals to an overarching ideological scheme," so my thinking was that the author must be assuming that all opponents will have an overarching ideological scheme.

Thanks!

[atierney]

Hello,

Yes, E was an irrelevant answer. Notice that the point here is that the link the person making the attack is the one who creates the link between an overarching ideological philosophy and the candidate being attacked. In other words, there's some creative action on the part of the attacker, rather than an actual extant link that might be found. If you select E, you are essentially assuming that this link is found rather than created, and I think that would be a misreading of the stimulus itself.

Let me know if you have further questions on this.

[rm_reykjavik]

Hi! I'd selected B but in my Blind Review, seriously considered E. I reasoned that if there wasn't a link between a proposal and an ideological framework, it would prevent the ability of the politician to attack it by linking the two. I see how that's slightly irrelevant, but the biggest concern I had with B was that it said that "generally more effective than those that are not." This is comparing emotional attacks to ALL other forms of attack, beyond policy details. Maybe there are different types of attacks than emotional and policy details, and we don't know about them. B would therefore be a great Justify answer, but a tough Assumption answer. Can someone help explain why this is OK to assume? Thank you!!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi rm,

First, if you haven't already done so, I'd recommend reading the prior posts for this question, especially the post by Jay (Post #3) and atierney (Post #7).

As far as Answer B, you may be interpreting this answer to mean something stronger/more extreme than what it is saying. Stating that "political attacks that are emotionally compelling are generally more effective than ones that are not," simply means that emotionally compelling attacks are more effective, all other things being equal. In other words, the characteristic of being "emotionally compelling" is a positive in terms of effectiveness. This does not imply that all emotionally compelling political attacks are more effective than those that are not, just that this is the general trend.

This is the assumption/unstated premise being made in the argument. There is a logical gap in the argument between "emotional compelling" in the premise and "more effective" in the conclusion and Answer B closes that gap in typical Supporter Assumption fashion by linking the terms. If you negate Answer B using the Assumption Negation Technique, the argument would then fall apart.