PrepTest 150, Section 2, Question 11
Psychologists have found that candidates for top political(63 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- AVoters' judgments about(10 more words not shown)
- BBlinking too infrequently(15 more words not shown)
- CExcessive blinking has(13 more words not shown)
- DCandidates for top(10 more words not shown)
- EViewers' judgments about(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if the blinking tells us something useful about the candidate?
The author treats it as a distraction: voters react to a feature that doesn't contribute to doing the job well. But a feature can reveal a useful quality without itself doing the work. Maybe excessive blinking signals nervousness or a lack of confidence. We don't know that yet, but it would matter because the author already lists confidence among the qualities that help an official perform well.
Imagine an official negotiating with foreign leaders. If confidence helps in that role, a reliable sign of confidence could be relevant when choosing that official. The blinking itself wouldn't have to improve or impair the negotiations.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to weaken the claim that any effect on election results must be harmful. I'd look for a connection between blinking and one of the useful qualities. That would give voters a reason to pay attention to it.
Working the answers
- A
Rare effects could still be harmful effects. The conclusion doesn't say this phenomenon usually changes election results; it says any impact it has is deleterious. Even if debate judgments almost never affect an election, that doesn't show that the occasions when they do are beneficial or harmless. A addresses how often the effect occurs, not what makes it bad.
- B
This adds another blink rate that viewers dislike. It doesn't connect either unusual rate to the candidate's ability to do the job. Perhaps viewers are responding to useful information; perhaps they are distracted by an irrelevant trait. B leaves the argument's central concern unresolved.
- CCorrect
The blinking is a mostly reliable sign of a lack of confidence, and confidence is one of the qualities the author says helps an official perform well. So voters who judge an excessively blinking candidate less favorably could be noticing a relevant weakness. We don't need blinking to cause poor performance. Its value as an indicator is enough to challenge the claim that any electoral impact must be bad.
- D
This connects knowledge with confidence, but it doesn't connect blinking with either quality. We already know these are relevant traits. D doesn't show that the viewers' blink-based judgments track them, so it doesn't explain why those judgments could help select a better official.
- E
Ignoring apparent knowledge doesn't make the response to blinking useful. If anything, this gives us another reason to question how well viewers assess candidates. The missing connection is between blink rate and a job-relevant quality; E doesn't provide it.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.