PT11.S2.Q24 - Political debt

BigJay20BigJay20 Member
edited March 2021 in Logical Reasoning 443 karma

Help! I’m having a hard time ruling out B, C and E. Try to work with my analogy. I get overwhelmed after spending too much time with the stimulus.

Since Hillary Clinton always pays her political debt as soon as possible, she will almost certainly appoint Donald Trump to the supreme court.

Donald has wanted the job for a long time and Secretary Clinton owes President Trump a lot for his support in the last election.

_I honestly did not know what to think and went straight to the answers.** Any tips?_**

a. If Mrs. Clinton has no debt that is currently longer than the one owed to Mr. Trump, and it could be suitably paid with a seat on the court then, there the “almost certainly” holds. If we negate this, we’re saying Madame Secretary has owed Joe Biden, Kevin McCarthy much longer and they could be suitably be appointed to the bench. The id!ot in me stopped during BR and realized that if this is true, how can I convince myself that Trump’s appointment to the court is almost certain? Eliminate.

b. I eliminated this because the magnitude of debt doesn’t matter. Say maybe, Speaker Pelosi introduced Mrs. Clinton to her biggest donor at the time her campaign was at the brink of extinction, but Speaker Pelosi isn’t suited for the court (because she has no legal background).

c. Trump is the only person who Mrs. Clinton owes who would be willing to accept her appointment. So far, my reason to eliminate this would be that his willingness to accept the appointment could have no bearing on her appointing him. Maybe she wanted to go after Obama, who wouldn’t willing accept it as first hand but could be convinced to. This doesn’t make the assumption a strong one. The acceptance could have zero relation to her decision of appointment.

d. True. Heck, he became president.Negating this and viewing him as a highly qualified candidate doesn’t do anything to the argument.

e. “The only way.” Absolutes are always a red flag for me on NA. THe stimulus says, the debt has to be paid. Whether is adequately done, sufficiently, insufficiently or unimpressively done is not my business. As long, as it’s paid.

Comments

  • Lime Green DotLime Green Dot Member ⭐
    1384 karma

    Hey! I'll give it a go.

    The missing and necessary assumption here is that the mayor's pol. debt to L is a debt that's both older than any debt she owes to anyone else and, simultaneously, is most appropriately repaid through L's appointment as AC head. Because what if she had an even older debt to another person than what she owes to L, or what if there was a much better way to satisfy the debt to L than giving him this appointment? Like, just b/c L wanted that appointment doesn't mean it's the best way for the mayor to repay her debt. The negation of (A) tells us that we therefore cannot "almost certainly" conclude what the STIM says about the mayor's repayment to L. It's the understanding that this "type" of repayment is the most appropriate way and that simultaneously the "age" of the mayor's debt to L that forces her to repay it in this way. That's why (A) is necessary.

    In your analogy, this means HC is indebted to DT in a way that trumps (ahahah) any of her other political debts both in time and type. There's no one in her political world to whom she owes an "older" pol. debt, and there's no better way to pay off her pol. debt to DT than by appointing him to the SC.

    (B)
    I think you picked up on this, but just to underscore your analysis, notice that we never talk about the relative SIZES of debts--that's not a standard for how the mayor/HC evaluates how and to whom she prioritizes paying off a pol. debt. That's what (B) is going for. It doesn't matter that HC may have a "greater" pol. debt to SP. Honestly speaking, your hypothetical has some assumption holes, too, but for the reasons you give, it is correct to eliminate this.

    (C)
    I think you nailed it again in your analysis of why to eliminate this. Willingness isn't a standard for how the mayor/HC evaluates how and to whom she prioritizes paying off her pol. debts. Even if there were a lot of other "willing" individuals, it doesn't necessarily mean the mayor/HC shouldn't still repay her debt to L/DT in this way.

    (E)
    So what if appointing L/DT to their respective posts wasn't the only way the mayor/HC could repay their pol. debts? Could it still be possible that appointing L/DT to their respective posts is the best way for the mayor/HC to pay off their pol. debts? Maybe yes, maybe no. The sheer possibility, however, is what allows us to eliminate the A/C. And yes, red flag for "the only way" on an NA. But in terms of your reasons, it's not just b/c the debt's paid. Remember, our standards involve time (is HC's debt to DT older than her other pol. debts?) and type (is an appointment to SC the most appropriate way to pay back that debt?).

    Seems like you've got a handle on the rest. I think you did a good job on your analysis!

    I also think the key to attacking the A/C would have been to see those 2 conditions/standards that the mayor was using to prioritize who/how her repayment of debt was to be done. But being able to confidently POE to the right A/C as you did, especially for a difficult Q like this, may be the most realistic way to go. I'd probably do the same.

    The negation test can also help and a good general grasp of what a correct NA answer needs to accomplish, as well as what it doesn't need to do based on STIM context, can lead you to the right answer.

    Cheers!

Sign In or Register to comment.