Self-study
Astorga's campaign promises are apparently just an attempt to please voters. ████ ███ ████ ███ ████ ██ ██ ███████ █████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ ███ ███████ ████ ███████ █████ ████ ██████ ████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████ ███ ███ █████ ████ ████ ███████ ████████ ███████ ██ ██ ██ ███ ███████ ██████
Objective: Find a Necessary Assumption
The author concludes that Astorga isn’t telling voters what she actually plans to do once she’s elected mayor. Why? Because her campaign promises are based on her knowledge of what voters want their mayor to do.
Look closely: does the author's premise actually support the conclusion? Not really! The premise is about how Astorga determined her campaign promises, while the conclusion is about what Astorga intends to do as mayor. In between these two, the author is missing a link to connect making popular promises with lacking the intention to follow through.
Put differently, this means the author is assuming that Astorga doesn't plan to fulfil her promises. Without this assumption, the argument makes no sense—we would have no reason to think Astorga's popular promises are dishonest. And it's certainly a questionable assumption, without any other information to suggest that Astorga is lying.
6.
Which one of the following ██ █ ████████████ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ███████
a
If she is ███████ ██████ ███████ ████ ███ ██ ███████ ██ ████████ ███ ███ ████████ ████████ ███ ███ █████
If (A) looks appealing, read the conclusion carefully: it's talking about what Astorga intends to do, whereas (A) is talking about what she can do. Astorga's actual capabilities are a different issue from her intentions: she could intend to do something impossible, or intend not to do something possible. So it's not necessary to assume (A).
b
The opinion polls ██ █████ █████████ ████████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███████ ████ ██████ ████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ███
The conclusion doesn't depend on the polls being accurate or inaccurate; it just depends on Astorga's promises being different from her actual plans. Even if the polls are 100% correct, that wouldn't harm the argument, meaning (B) isn't necessary.
c
Most voters are ████████ ██ ██ █████████ ██ █████████ ████████ ████████ ██ ████ ███ ███ ██ ███ ███████ █████████
The conclusion is limited to what Astorga intends to do if elected. The likelihood of her actually being elected doesn't matter, and neither does her ability to persuade voters. The author is just trying to convince us that Astorga is lying, not that she'll win.
d
Astorga has no ██████ ████████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ████ ███ ███ █████ █████ ██ ██ ██ ███████
Astorga’s personal opinions concerning the role of a mayor are irrelevant, because the conclusion is about what she intends to do if elected. Whether she's making these plans because of voters' wishes, because of her own opinions, or for some other reason doesn't make a difference. So it's not necessary to assume anything about her opinions.
e
Astorga does not ████████ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ ██ ████ ███ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ███████ █████ ████ ██████ ████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ███
This must be true in order for the conclusion to follow. If we negated (E), and Astorga intended to do what voters want once she’s elected, then her campaign promises would be truthful. Taking away (E) would make the argument fall apart, which is how we can tell it's necessary to assume. And this assumption is certainly questionable: we have no reason to assume Astorga's intentions.