PrepTest 150, Section 2, Question 4
When politicians describe their opponents' positions, they typically(60 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(10 more words not shown)
- Afails to address(17 more words not shown)
- Bfails to account(16 more words not shown)
- Cfocuses on the(16 more words not shown)
- Dtakes for granted(10 more words not shown)
- Epresumes, without giving(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Will voters respond the way the scholars' colleagues do?
I can see why a charitable description might help with a scholarly audience. If I fairly explain your strongest position and then show why it fails, my criticism may be harder to dismiss. If I instead accuse you of believing something you plainly don't believe, a careful listener could reject my criticism before I get to the point.
But the politician has a different audience. Imagine voters who hear a fair description of the opposition as a sign of weakness: 'Why are you making their position sound good?' Those voters might prefer a forceful dismissal, even if it is less fair. I'm not claiming voters actually all behave that way. It's a possibility the comparison leaves open.
What we’re looking for
The two groups may also have different broader goals—winning an election versus examining an idea—but the conclusion specifically concerns persuasion. The relevant question is whether the technique that persuades professional colleagues will also persuade more voters. For the flaw, I'd look for that unsupported transfer between audiences.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The evidence concerns what works with scholars' professional colleagues. The conclusion recommends the same approach as a way to persuade voters. Without addressing how those audiences might differ, the author hasn't shown that the benefit carries over. We don't have to prove voters would dislike charitable argument; the unaddressed possibility is enough to expose the gap.
- B
Charitably explaining an opposing position might take effort. But difficulty doing something doesn't show it would fail to persuade people if done. The claim is about the effectiveness of the approach. B raises a practical challenge without addressing the unsupported comparison between audiences.
- C
The argument does contrast two styles, but the crucial move is recommending one style to a new audience because it works with the first. Saying the styles might suit similar audiences doesn't identify why that transfer is unsupported. We need to question whether these audiences respond alike, not merely observe that two styles could share an audience.
- D
The argument needn't assume persuasion is the only goal, or even the ultimate goal, of both groups. Scholars might primarily seek truth and nevertheless make arguments that persuade colleagues. Politicians might seek office by persuading voters. The passage describes a persuasive effect and recommends trying to reproduce it; the mistake concerns whether that effect transfers.
- E
We aren't told how politicians describe a position they actually share with their opponents. They might agree openly on that issue while attacking another. The recommendation doesn't depend on politicians misrepresenting even shared positions, so E adds a situation the argument neither describes nor needs.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.