Self-study
Journalist: Although a recent poll found that more than half of all eligible voters support the idea of a political party whose primary concern is education, Support only 26 percent would like to join it, and Support only 16 percent would be prepared to donate money to it. ████████████ █████ ██ ████████████ ██████████ ████████ ████ ████ █ █████ ████ ███ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ██ ████████ ██████ ████████ ██ ███████ ██ ██ ██████ ███████ ██ ██ ████████ █████ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██████████ ██ ██ ████████ ████ ██ █████████ █████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that it’s unlikely an education party is viable in the long run. This is based on the following:
Historically, in order to be viable in the long run, a party needs at least 30% of eligible voters prepared to support it by joining it or by donating money to it.
According to a recent poll, only 26% of eligible voters are prepared to join an education party, and only 16% of eligible voters are prepared to donate money to one.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that the combination of people who are prepared to join and people who are prepared to donate would exceed 30%. In other words, the author takes for granted that the set of people who are prepared to donate is completely contained within the set who are prepared to join. But this doesn’t have to be true. Some people might want to donate without wanting to join.
24.
The reasoning in the journalist's ████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ████████ ████
a
some of those ███ ████ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ██████ █████ ██ ██ █████████ █████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ██ ██ ████ █ █████ ████ ██████
If even fewer people donate than expected, that doesn’t undermine the argument. If anything, that suggests the level of support for an education party is even lower.
b
an education party █████ ████████ ██ ██████ ████ █ ███████ ████ ████ ██ ███████████ ██████
The author noted that an education party is “unlikely” to be viable. This recognizes that it’s possible some education parties might be able to gain viability even if they don’t meet the requirements observed based on the historical evidence.
c
the 16 percent ██ ████████ ██████ ████████ ██ ██████ █████ ██ ██ █████████ █████ █████ ██████ ██████ ██ ████ █████ ██ █ █████ █████ ██████████ ██████ ██ ███ ██ ██ ███████ ██ ████████ ██████ ███████████
The overall amount of money donated is irrelevant to the author’s reasoning, because the historical evidence relied on is about % of voters who are prepared to join or donate. The historical requirement for viability isn’t about the amount of money that a party needs.
d
a party needs ███ ███████████ ███████ ██ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ██ ████████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████ ███████ ███ ████ ██ ██ █████████ █████
The author considers this. The author acknowledges that over 50% support the idea of an education party, but states that historically there are specific kinds of support required (join/donate). That’s why the author thinks the “over 50% support” isn’t enough for viability.
e
some of the ████████ ██████ ███ █████ ██████ █████ ██ ██ █████████ █████ █████ ███ ██ ████████ ██ ████ ████ █ █████
If some of the voters who would donate are not those who would join, that shows it’s possible the combination of voters who would join plus the voters who would donate could exceed 30%. This is why the premises don’t show that an education party is likely to fail.