48.1.24 Journalist: Although a recent poll

Accounts Playable

Can someone break this one down? I don't see how B is incorrect, and I don't see how E is correct. Isn't one of the flaws in the argument a past to present flaw (line 6)? Doesn't B call this assumption out that an education party could be different than what has been historically true?

Also, for E, I eliminated it because I thought it strengthened the argument! Isn't the conclusion that the education party isn't going to be viable in the long run? The percent of people is too low for historical standards, and stating that even fewer people would join the party would strengthen that support right? Isn't that what answer choice E does?

iiiSpoon

Hey Accounts Playable, the journalist argues that only 26 percent would join the education political party while only 16 percent would fund it; because evidence shows that a party has at least 30 percent eligible voters prepared to support it by either joining it or donating it, that therefore the education party is unlikely to be viable in the long run. What ought to stick out is why we cannot just add 26 to 16 and get 42? And that's what (E) states, though in a very different manner

The flaw is that the journalist assumes that the 16 percent that would fund the party would join the political party, and so the education party would only have 26 percent of support. If you keep the two groups separate while supporting the education party, then the total percentage meets the 30 percent historical requirement.

For (B), the argument of the journalist does not support the idea that a smaller base could be possible. Just because it is possible does not mean it is applicable to our situation.

Hope this helps.

c.janson35

Exactly! This is a tough question. The argument is assuming there's complete overlap between the two groups, but if E says that this isn't necessarily true. If some of the 16% aren't in the group with 26%, then the 30% threshold may actually be reached!