Self-study
Political organizer: Conclusion Our group needs to assemble at least 30 volunteers if Marcia Garson is to have a chance of winning the election, since Support she will win only if the public is fully informed about her record. ██ █████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ████████ ███ ████ ███ ██ ██████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ████ █████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the group needs at least 30 volunteers in order for Garson to have a chance of winning the election. This is because in order for her to win, the public must be fully informed of her record, and in order for the public to be fully informed of her record, she needs 30 people to campaign for her. The campaign can’t pay 30 people to campaign, so they need to be volunteers.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s assessment of what’s required in order for Garson to have a chance of winning the election: “Our group needs to assemble at least 30 volunteers if Marcia Garson is to have a chance of winning the election.”
9.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ██████████ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████ █████████
a
Marcia Garson will ████████ ███ ██ ████████
The author never says or suggests that Garson will probably lose. The argument is about what the group needs to do in order for her to have a chance. There's no pessimism here about the outcome of the election itself.
b
The political organizer's █████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ███ ██████ ███████
This is a premise. The author isn't trying to convince us that the group can't afford to pay campaigners. She's treating that as a given fact and using it to show why the 30 campaigners need to be volunteers. Without this premise, the conclusion would just be "we need 30 people to campaign," with no reason to specify volunteers.
c
If winning the ████████ ██ ██ ██ █ ███████████ ███ ██████ ███████ ███ █████████ ███████████ █████ █████ ██ █████ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ███████████
This is a paraphrase of the conclusion. The author's very first claim is that the group needs to assemble at least 30 volunteers if Garson is going to have a chance of winning. Everything that follows that claim is designed to show why winning requires assembling those volunteers.
d
If the public ██ ███ █████ ████████ █████ ██████ ████████ ███████ ███ ████ ███ ███ ███ █████████
This is the contrapositive of the first premise ("she will win only if the public is fully informed about her record"). Another way to express that premise: if the public is not fully informed, she will not win. The author uses this statement in connection with the last sentence to show why Garson needs to get 30 volunteers in order to win the election.
e
At least 30 ██████ ████ ███ █████████ ███████████ █████ ████ ██ ████████ ███ ██████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ █████ ██████ ███ ██████ █████ ███ ███████
This is a premise. The author uses the fact that 30 people need to campaign in order to fully inform the public as part of showing why Garson needs 30 volunteers in order to win. Notice the difference between (E) and the actual conclusion (the first sentence): (E) says nothing about volunteers or winning the election.