#17 - Politician: Some of my opponents have argued on theoretical grounds in favor of reducing

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A).

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[teezoTD]

I understand why A is right but while taking the test I couldn't rule out why C was wrong. Is it because by saying "main cause" the politician is implying that he believes there's more than one cause, and therefore C couldn't be right?

I may have been reading too fast and mistaken main cause to mean only cause. Please let me know if this is the right logic.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi teezo,

That's right!

The politician is not assuming that there is only one cause for deficit spending.

The politician is basically saying that, since the main cause of the deficit spending is the bloat (or excessive number) of bureaucrats and self-aggrandizing politicians, there is no reason to reduce social spending.

The problem with this argument is that, even if the main cause of the deficit spending is the number of bureaucrats and politicians, there could still be valid reasons for reducing social spending.

In other words, two things can be true at once. They may be spending too much on social spending even if it is not the largest part of the budget.

[cjtoon]

Hi PowerScore team, I got this correct but struggled to identify the argument parts. I identified the politician saying that the opponents should focus on the main cause of deficit spending as the conclusion of this argument. I am not 100%, as there is another conclusion at the end of the stimulus, saying it is unwarranted to reduce social expenditure. I decided that this last sentence seemed more like an intermediate conclusion, as it seems to be evidence for the first conclusion. Did I break this down correctly? Thanks!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi cjtoon,

Actually the last sentence of the argument is the main conclusion. The politician is arguing that because the main cause of deficit spending is not spending on social programs, reducing spending on social programs is unwarranted.

The flaw in the argument is that, even if spending on social programs is not the main cause of deficit spending, it may still be warranted (i.e. a good idea) to cut back on social programs spending.

To use an analogy, although buying groceries isn't the single biggest expense in my monthly budget, it could still be true that I spend too much on groceries and should cut back on my grocery spending.