Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

PT 39.4.15 (Second LR section)

Accounts PlayableAccounts Playable Live Sage
edited September 2015 in Logical Reasoning 3107 karma
Man, I got murdered on this PT (after completely destroying PT 38). I thought the RC and LR were nightmares on this PT. Anyway, I cannot figure out how C is better than A for this question. Here is my reasoning for this question:

This is a flaw/descriptive weaken question (specifically in S's argument).

R: If you are more diverse in experience, then the more you will understand the need for compromise. Therefore, to become a politician, a person should have a diversity of experience.

S: To be worthy of public trust, it's not enough to only have diverse experience. Such a person wouldn't necessarily be worthy of public trust.

What I am looking for: I know we only want S's flaw, but R is missing the link between compromise and becoming a politician. For S, she doesn't actually say anything. She pretty much goes "no, diverse experience isn't enough because it isn't enough." S also equivocates "becoming a politician" with "worthiness of public trust."

Answer A: How is this not it? S gives an opposite point of view (you don't need a diversity of experience) and she gives no reason for it (S gives absolutely no evidence; in my mind, S's second sentence is completely redundant of the first).

Answer B: S never talks about what is beneficial.

Answer C: How is possibly the credited answer? Yes, S attributes a view to R ("as you suggest"), but how is the second part of this answer choice correct? Where does S explicitly or implicitly say that the view is more vulnerable than what is actually expressed? I don't see anywhere where S remotely says something like "R, your belief about diverse experience is very vulnerable to critics."

Answer D: Personal vs. relevant? S doesn't mention this.

Answer E: Flexibility? S doesn't talk about this. Also, S doesn't actually talk about politics, only "worthiness of public trust."

Help much appreciated.

Comments

  • aincaoaincao Member
    47 karma
    Ok so let's go through the answer choices.

    A) says that the response gives a point of view that is opposite Ruth's without giving reasons.

    Does Ruth say that its enough to have a diversity of experience to be a politician? No, she says it should be "required" aka NECESSARY.

    Let's look at Stephanie's argument. "To be worthy of public trust, IT IS NOT ENOUGH, as you suggest, that one simply have varied experience. Such a person would not necessarily be worthy of public trust."

    In her argument does she really disagree with Ruth? No, she says that it's "not enough, that one simply have varied experience", therefore she's not really arguing against anything, she misunderstood Ruth's position because Ruth never said that.

    B) This is wrong for the reasons you said, S never said it wasn't beneficial.

    C) "The response attributes TO RUTH a view that is more vulnerable to criticism than any she actually expresses." This answer choice paraphrased is saying that "S misunderstood R's argument and made it seemed flawed" See the explanation for why answer A is wrong? Is Ruth's argument invalid or flawed? No, it's a fairly decent point as she is talking about something that should be necessary for becoming a politician. That's why this is correct.

    D) this is irrelevant.

    E) Also irrelevant
Sign In or Register to comment.