Self-paced
Politician: Conclusion Of the candidates running, Thompson is the best person to lead this nation. ███ ███ ██████ ████████ ███████ ██████ █████ ███████ ███ █████ ██████████ ███████ █████ ████ █████ █████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██████ █████ ████ ████ █ ██████ ██████ ████ ███████ ███ ████████ █████
Argument Summary
The politician concludes that Thompson is the best of the candidates to lead the nation. The support is a chain: Thompson opposes higher taxes while the other candidates support them, and, the politician adds, many people would agree that anyone who opposes higher taxes makes a better leader than someone who supports them.
The leap from Thompson's tax position to Thompson's leadership rests entirely on that rule about tax opponents making better leaders, and the only thing backing the rule is that "many would agree" with it. So the argument treats a popular opinion as though it settled whether opposing higher taxes actually has anything to do with being a good leader.
Anticipation
This is a Weaken question. The argument's whole case for Thompson depends on the idea that opposing higher taxes makes a person a better leader. The only support for that idea is that many people agree it's true, which is not the same as its being true. To weaken the argument, the strongest move is to undermine the argument's assumption by giving us reason to think a candidate's stance on higher taxes has no bearing on how good a leader they would be.
19.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ █████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███ ████████████ █████████
a
Opposing higher taxes ██ ███ █ ██████ ████████████ ██ ████ ███████████
This directly undermines the assumption that what “many people agree” about is correct. If opposition to higher taxes doesn’t contribute to good leadership, then it’s not a relevant to a determination of which candidate would make for a better leader than another candidate.
b
Being opposed to ██████ █████ ██ ███ █ ██████████ █████████ ███ ████ ███████████
This attacks a claim the politician never made. The argument does not say opposing higher taxes is enough to guarantee good leadership. It says only that opposing higher taxes makes someone a better leader than supporting them, which is a comparative point. Even if tax-opposition is not sufficient for good leadership on its own, it could still be a factor that makes one candidate a better leader than another, which is all the argument needs.
c
Thompson has questionable ████████ ██████████ █████████ ██████ █████ ████ ██████
This raises an outside issue the argument's reasoning does not relate to. The politician's case rests on the rule that tax-opponents make better leaders, not on Thompson's other opinions. On top of that, the conclusion compares Thompson to the other candidates, and we are not told they are any better on those other issues, so questionable opinions elsewhere do not help show Thompson might not be the best.
d
All of the ████ ███████ ███ █████████ ██████ █████ █████████ █████ ████ ███████████
The conclusion is comparative, that Thompson is the best of the candidates, so this does not touch it. Even if every past leader who supported higher taxes performed adequately, Thompson could still be a better leader than candidates who support higher taxes. Performing adequately is not the same as being as good as Thompson, so this does no damage.
e
All of the ████ ███████ ███ █████████ ██████ █████ ████ ████████████
The author cites to what many people agree about as support for a rule that those who oppose higher taxes are better leaders than those who support them. Other qualities of the candidates, such as potentially being hardworking, are not relevant to application of this rule.