PT1.S4.Q5 - Senator Strongwood reported that

STT_340

I have been looking at this question for a while and A, B, C appeared correct at first. I narrowed it down to C because it seemed like he was mocking and taunting the opposing view as to suggest their report ludicrous, an appeal to emotion. I ruled out A and B because although true, that did not seem like the main method of reasoning he was using. Now that I know B is in fact the correct answer, I have eliminated A & C on the grounds that they are referring to context parts and the major premise "could not imagine any senator..." seems to imply Answer choice B more closely ...What do you guys think?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [first set of words]"

JuandaSheep

We are looking for a method of reasoning applied by the senator.

(A) The senator said that a reduction in taxes would increase deficit (i.e. decrease revenue). Does that imply that increasing tax gains would increase revenue? Not necessarily. Maybe revenue would remain unchanged when taxes increase, because some other thing would happen. There's just no way for us to know based on what the senator said, and it wouldn't be fair to claim that the senator implies that.

(C) "expressly stating" is what made me eliminate C. The senator did expressly state that people with common sense would believe in the aforementioned principle. He didn't expressly state his opponents lack common sense. Okay, maybe he implied it. But he didn't state it. Also, this quote is addressed to the senators voting for the two plans. Maybe some of those senators are his "opponents," but we don't know.

(D) Which one is the "unpopular legislation"?

(B) and (E) are fairly similar. I actually went for (E). I think you were right that the "could not imagine any senator..." is a reason to eliminate (E). The senator reasoned that out of the two studies, his party's study would be more appealing. We actually don't know if the senator thinks his party's study is more "objective," which is another extra thing (E) threw in.

(B) As I said earlier, there are two studies and the senator thinks the other plan is "dead" and his audience would obviously vote for his plan. B seems to be the most fitting description, supported by the sentence you quoted.

AudaciousRed

B is the right answer because it is looking for something that the senator is assuming in order to make his conclusion. If he says that, because of his party's awesome study, the senators wont vote for it and the administration's plans are dead, he has assumed that the senators have believed his study showing tax cuts are a bad deal. If they didn't believe his study, then the argument kind of falls apart.

C. He said nothing about his opponents lacking common sense, only "hooray for common sense". "Opponents" are actually never mentioned.

D. Unpopular legislation? Where was popularity indicated in any of this? It says "Everyone knows", but said nothing about what they cared about or what move was more popular.

E. They only said in the text that the study was thorough and contrary to the administrations study. It never spoke of the quality or type of the administration's study. So we know nothing about objectiveness.

A. Lower capital gains -> Higher deficit is what the study shows. The answer choice wants you to believe that Higher Capital gains -> Lower deficit. You can't get that from what we have, and nothing that supports that is ever implied. It;s trying to make you do an erroneous contra-positive. Don't fall for that.