Summarize Argument
The author wants to convince us that we should vote. That conclusion isn’t outright stated, but the rest of the argument supports it. The author tells us that if no one voted, democracy would fail and society would crumble. Why is that relevant when considering a single vote? Because any action which would be harmful if lots of people did it is also wrong for any individual to do. This principle is supported with the analogy of dishonesty: not too impactful on a small scale, but we still consider it wrong.
Broken down, the logic looks like: actions that would be bad for everyone to do are wrong for individuals; not voting is such an action. So (implied), not voting is wrong.
Broken down, the logic looks like: actions that would be bad for everyone to do are wrong for individuals; not voting is such an action. So (implied), not voting is wrong.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion in this argument is implied, not explicitly stated: citizens should exercise their right to vote.
A
People in a democracy should not neglect to vote.
This is exactly the author’s point. Even though it’s implied rather than stated, the premises establish that it’s wrong not to vote. In other words, people should vote (or “not neglect to vote”).
B
Dishonest acts and failure to vote are equally damaging.
The argument does not support drawing an exact equivalence between dishonesty and not voting. Dishonesty is an analogy used to support the rule about when relatively low-impact actions can still be wrong. All we know is that single similarity with not voting.
C
There is a risk that individual antisocial acts will be imitated by others.
The author never talks about imitation. The principle in the argument is that individual actions can be wrong depending on the possible consequences if everyone did the same. It’s hypothetical, not a claim that everyone will do the same.
D
A single person’s vote or wrongful act can in fact make a great deal of difference.
This is not stated in the argument. The author is only talking about individual acts that don’t make much difference on their own.
E
Large-scale dishonesty and neglect of public duty will be destructive of democratic and other societies.
This claim about dishonesty is only used as an analogy to support the author’s rule about when low-impact actions might still be wrong. This supports other parts of the argument, and is not supported itself, making it a premise.
</section