Self-study
Analyst: When Johnson attacked his opponent by quoting her out of context, his campaign defended this attack by claiming that the quote was even more politically damaging to her in context. ███ █████ ███ ███ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ████ ████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ██ ████████
Summarize Argument
The analyst concludes Johnson’s campaign doesn’t actually believe his opponent’s quote was more damaging in context. Why not? Because they’ve passed on several more opportunities to quote her statement in context.
Notable Assumptions
The analyst assumes Johnson’s campaign continues to take the quote out of context because it believes the quote would be no more damaging in context. This means assuming there’s no other reason the campaign would continue to give the quote without context—such as convenience, for example.
8.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ██████ ████ ████████ ████████ ███ █████████ █████████ ██████
a
In criticizing an █████████ █████████ █████████ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ██████ ████ ███████ ██ ██ ████ ███████████ █████████
This makes concrete the analyst’s assumption that the campaign would only continue to use the quote out of context if it were at least as damaging as the quote in context. It rules out the possibility that considerations other than political damage are more important.
b
In criticizing an █████████ █████████ █████████ ██ ███ ███ ██████████ ████ ████ █████ ████ █████████████ ██ ████ ███████ █████ ██████████
This principle doesn’t apply. There’s no indication Johnson’s campaign would find it objectionable if his opponent quoted him in context.
c
In criticizing an █████████ █████████ █████████ ███ ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ █████ █████████ █████ ███ ███ █████ ███ ██ ████████
This principle doesn’t affect the argument. It implies the campaign must have some motivation for taking the quote out of context—but doesn’t make the particular motivation suggested by the analyst any more likely.
d
In criticizing an █████████ █████████ █████████ ████ ███ ██ ████████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██████████ ██ █████ ████████ ████ ████████ ████ ██ █████ █████████
This doesn’t affect the argument. It implies Johnson’s campaign won’t be criticized either way—it doesn’t make it any more likely the campaign is lying.
e
In criticizing an █████████ █████████ █████████ ████ █████ █████ ██████████ ████ █████ █████ █████████ ████ ██ █████████ ███████████████
This principle doesn’t apply. There’s no indication that quoting Johnson’s opponent in context—as opposed to out of context—would make Johnson vulnerable to counterattack.