Self-study
S: Support People who are old enough to fight for their country are old enough to vote for the people who make decisions about war and peace. ████ ██████████ ███████ ███████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ██████ ███████████ █████ █████ ██ █████
██ ████ ████████ ██ █ ████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ████████ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ████ ████ ██ █████████ ████████ ████ ████████ █████████ ████████ █████████████ ███ ██ █ ██████ █████ ███████ ███ █████████ ████████ ██ ███████ █████████ ████████████ ███████ ██████ █████████ ██ ███████████ █ ████████████ ████████ █████████ █████████ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ███████
Argument Summary
S’s argument sets out a general principle (if you’re old enough to fight, you’re old enough to vote), then applies that principle to 17 year olds (they’re old enough to fight, so they’re old enough to vote).
T challenges that general principle by first noting that it only works when the two activities are meaningfully similar, then arguing they’re actually quite different (fighting requires brawn; voting requires brains).
You should head into the answer choices with something like “attacks a premise” or “challenges the analogy” in mind.
23.
T responds to S’s argument ██
a
citing evidence overlooked ██ █ ████ █████ ████ █████████ █████ ██████████
This would fit a stimulus where T comes in with extra support for S’s position. Like “oh yeah here are some more reasons why 17 year olds should be able to vote!”
b
calling into question █████ █████████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ██████
T’s beef isn’t about what rights are, but about when it makes sense to say one right should follow from another.
c
showing that S ███ ███████ ███ ███████████ ███████ ██████ █ █████ ██ ██ █████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██ ████ █████
That’s a real distinction, it’s just not at all relevant to this argument. In fact, the concept of obligation doesn’t appear anywhere in the stimulus.
d
challenging the truth ██ █ █████ ██ █████ █████ ██████████ ██ █████
S claims that if you’re old enough to fight, you’re old enough to vote. Based on that claim, S concludes 17 year olds should be able to vote (because they’re old enough to fight).
T challenges the truth of that claim by saying “that would only work if fighting were the same kind of activity as voting” and then pointing out a bunch of differences between the two.
e
arguing for a ██████████ ████████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ██ █
(E) essentially asks us to commit the lack of support v. false conclusion flaw. T only argues that S’s reasoning is flawed, which is different from arguing that 17 year olds should not be allowed to vote.