Self-study
Editorial: Support This political party has repeatedly expressed the view that increasing spending on education is a worthy goal. ██ █████ ██████████ ████████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██████ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██████ ██ ███████ █████████████
Summary
The author concludes that the party’s policy is inconsistent. This is based on the fact that the party has expressed the following views at different times:
Increasing spending on education is a worthy goal.
The government should not increase spending on education.
Notable Assumptions
One view expressed by the party is that increasing spending on education is a worthy goal. Is that inconsistent with, at other times, thinking that the government should not increase spending on education? Not necessarily. Maybe increasing spending on education is a worthy goal, but there are times when there are even more worthy goals, so the government should increase spending for other things instead of education. There’s nothing inherently contradictory about the views expressed.
It’s not clear what we should anticipate, but we should go into the answers with the understanding that the author assumes that the party’s expression of both views is somehow inconsistent.
23.
The argument in the editorial ███████ ██ ████████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
It is inconsistent ███ █ ██████████ ████ ██ █████ ████ ██████████ ████████ ██ █████████ ██ █ ██████ ████ ███ ██ ████ ███████ ██████████ ████████ ██ ██████████
We don’t know that the party voted against increased spending on education. All we know about are views that the party has expressed.
b
A consistent course ██ ██████ ██ ███████████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ██████ ████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ████
The author doesn’t have to assume anything about effectiveness at reducing spending. The argument simply concerns two views and whether they are inconsistent.
c
Even if a ████ ██ █ ███████ ████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ███████████ ███ ██ ███████ ███
Not necessary, because the argument doesn’t concern what should or should not be achieved. The argument simply concerns two views and whether they are inconsistent.
d
A consistent political ██████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ██████ ████ █████████ █ ██████ ████ ██████ ███ ██ ██████████
Necessary, because if it were not true — if a consistent political policy CAN hold that an action that comprises a worthy goal should not be performed — then there’s nothing about the two views that warrants thinking there’s an inconsistent policy. The two views can be part of a consistent policy, if (D) were negated.
e
Members of one █████████ █████ █████ ████ ████████████ █████ ██ ███ ██ ████ ████████ █ █████████ ██████
The argument doesn’t concern claims about individual members of a party. It’s about whether the party itself has a policy that’s inconsistent.