Self-study
Tariffs on particular products tend to protect the small percentage of the population that works in industries that make those products while hurting everyone else through higher costs. █████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ████ ██████ ██████ ████ ████████ ██ ███████████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ██ █████████ ██ ████ █████ ███████ █████ ████████
Summary
The author concludes that politicians would be more likely to be reelected if they voted against tariffs on particular products.
Why?
Because most people oppose tariffs on particular products.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that a politician who oppose tariffs is more likely to win more votes than she would lose by taking that position. This overlooks the possibility that tariff-supporters might be much more likley to vote than tariff-opposers. Or tariff-supporters might be much more likely to base their vote on who supports tariffs than the tariff-opposers are to base their vote on who opposes tariffs.
24.
Which one of the following ██ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ███████
a
Supporters of tariffs ██ ██████████ ████████ ███ ███ █████████████ ████ ██████ ████ █████████ ██ ████ █████ ████ ███ █ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████████ █████ ██ ████ ██████
Necessary, because if it were not true — if tariff-supporters ARE significantly more likely than opponents to base their vote on the tariff issue — that raises the possibility that you might LOSE more votes than you gain by opposing tariffs. In other words, the negation of (A) points out that the likelihood that someone will vote based on the tariff issue is another relevant factor to assessing whether a politician is likely to be releected. It’s not just about the number of people who oppose/support a policy.
b
Politicians always vote █████████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██████████
Not necessary, because the argument concerns what would happen IF a politician opposes tariffs. This doesn’t require any assumption about what politicians actually do.
c
Politicians should support ████ ███████ ████████ █████ ████ ███████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ███████ ████ ██████ ████ ███████ ██ ██████████ █████████
Not supported, because the author doesn’t argue that politicians “should” or “should not” do something. The conclusion is purely a descriptive prediction about what would happen if politicians oppose tariffs.
d
Politicians should never ███████ ████████ ████ █████ ████ █ █████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████████
Not supported, because the author doesn’t argue that politicians “should” or “should not” do something. The conclusion is purely a descriptive prediction about what would happen if politicians oppose tariffs.
e
People who would ██ ████ ██ ███████ █████████ ████ ████ ████ █████ ██ ████ ██ █████
Not necessary, because we already know from a premise that most people oppose tariffs. What kind of person is in fact hurt by tariffs and whether they know they’re hurt doesn’t change the fact that we know most people oppose tariffs. The author’s argument is based on that opposition.