PrepTest 103, Section 1, Question 10
Audiences find a speaker more convincing if the(57 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(12 more words not shown)
- APolitical candidates typically(16 more words not shown)
- BMany people do(17 more words not shown)
- CPeople decide which(24 more words not shown)
- DPeople regard a(19 more words not shown)
- EPolitical candidates have(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Showing that you've considered the other side can make you more convincing. If I argue that chocolate is the best ice-cream flavor but first acknowledge reasons someone might prefer vanilla, I may sound more thoughtful than someone who refuses to hear any objection.
We are told that this technique makes speakers appear fair-minded and trustworthy. Fine. But will it help a political candidate win votes?
What if the candidate's supporters react badly to hearing their own position attacked? A voter might want the candidate to defend the cause, not begin by arguing against it. The political setting could create a drawback that the general account of effective speaking hasn't addressed.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what limits this recommendation's effectiveness. My prediction is a reason the technique could backfire for a candidate, even if it works well for speakers in general.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This gives us a specific way it could backfire: voters might hear only the opening argument against the candidate's actual position. The candidate could plan a carefully balanced speech and still have no control over which part appears in the news.
Suppose a candidate favors higher taxes, begins by explaining the case for lower taxes, and then explains why higher taxes are necessary. If the news carries only the opening, viewers may come away thinking the candidate supports lower taxes. That isn't exactly our initial prediction about supporters' reactions, but it identifies a real problem with using this technique in a campaign: the audience may never hear the reply that makes the whole speech work.
- B
This gives candidates a reason to avoid one-sided arguments. Presenting the opposing case before defending their own could address that criticism. It therefore makes the recommended technique more attractive, rather than showing why adopting it would be ineffective.
- C
This fits the recommendation. We are told that the technique makes a speaker appear fair-minded and trustworthy—qualities of character. If voters care more about character than about exact policy positions, that is a reason to value the favorable impression the technique produces.
- D
Acknowledging and fairly presenting an opponent's case could show respect for that position even while rejecting it. If voters like that, the technique has another potential advantage. D points toward using it, not toward a limit on its effectiveness.
- E
The fact that audiences differ in size and location doesn't tell us how they respond to this speaking technique. It might work with a small audience in one town and a large audience in another. We need a reason those circumstances interfere with the recommendation; simply listing differences doesn't provide one.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.