Self-study
Two Useful Lenses: MBT and NA
Must Be True questions and Necessary Assumption questions are logically very similar, as this old-school question stem demonstrates. You could rewrite most NA question stems to mirror this one: “In a world where the author’s argument works out, which of the following must be true?”
That’s the framing we’re gonna bring into this analysis. Now let’s lay out the facts:
- The citizen’s goal is to substantially change the council’s membership by voting out (almost) all the incumbents.
- Elections in each neighborhood are isolated – people can only vote in their own neighborhood’s election. (Supplied by the question stem.)
- The citizen is gonna support challengers in other neighborhoods, but support the incumbent in their own neighborhood.
- The citizen wants everyone to “follow my example.”
NA questions prompt us to critically examine the author’s argument, which is useful here:
We can’t vote in other neighborhoods, so opposition to incumbents in other neighborhoods counts for very little. If everyone “follows your example” in the sense of voting for the incumbent in their own neighborhood, the council’s membership won’t change at all.
That lens leads straight to a spot-on anticipation: the citizen assumes other voters won’t make the same “my incumbent is great” exception.
Now let’s phrase it in the MBT style this stem asks for:
In a world where the council’s membership substantially changes, it must be true that other voters aren’t “following the citizen’s example” in the sense of voting for their own neighborhood’s incumbent.
3.
Assuming that each citizen of ███████████ ██ ███████ ██ ████ ████ ███ █ ████ ███████ ██████████████ ████ ███ ██ ███ ███ █████████████ ███ ███ ███████████ ██████████ ██ ██ ███████ ██████████████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ████
a
at least some █████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ████ █████████ ███ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████
(A) negated: Every other voter makes the same exception for their own incumbent.
If this negated version of (A) were true, the council’s membership wouldn’t change at all. So in a world where the council’s membership does change substantially, (A) must be true. (A)’s truth is necessary for the council’s membership to change substantially.
b
most of the ████████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████
(B) addresses voter turnout, which has no established link to election results. Let’s say only 3 people show up to vote in each neighborhood – does that tell us whether the challenger will unseat the incumbent?
c
few of the ██████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ████ ███████ ████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ █████████
One way to dislike (C) is to recognize the common flaw at play: past events aren’t always indicative of the future. In this particular question, even if many of the incumbents have survived challenges before (i.e. even if we negate (C)), the citizen’s campaign drive could still prove successful.
d
all of the █████ ██ ███ ███████████ ████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████ █████ █████ ███ ████████
In a world where the council’s membership is changed substantially, (D) could still be false.
(D) negated: at least one of the seats is filled by an incumbent whose term isn’t expiring.
We just need the council’s membership to change substantially. Perhaps, say, one of the twelve council seats belongs to an incumbent whose term isn’t expiring. Deposing the eleven other incumbents would still mark a substantial change in the council’s membership.
e
none of the ███████████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ ███ █████ ██ ███████████████ ████ ███████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ██ █████ █████████████ ████ ████ ███ ██████████
Strictly speaking, candidates’ actual ability to serve their neighborhoods’ interests has no guaranteed connection to the election results, which are based (partly) on candidates’ perceived abilities. That’s facts vs. beliefs.
From a common sense standpoint, though, (E) seems actually to undercut efforts to change up the city council membership by presenting a reason not to vote for challengers.