A
the apparent ineffectuality of legislative representatives is the only source of popular dissatisfaction with those representatives
Our author never proves that the only way to dissatisfy one’s electorate is to do the job one was elected to do. If a politician could dissatisfy their electorate some other way, our author’s argument would fall apart.
B
governmental resources that are currently scarce cannot become more abundant except by the actions of politicians
This question doesn’t deal with making resources less scarce. All we know is that one governmental resource, funding, is scarce. Because there is no question in the argument of how we increase access to this resource, this cannot be our flaw.
C
constituents would continue to be dissatisfied with the effectuality of their legislative representatives if constituents were aware of the cause of this apparent ineffectuality
This argument doesn’t depend on the constituents knowing the cause of the inefficacy. Whether or not the constituents know is caused by politicians doing their jobs, they are still dissatisfied with them. Therefore, this does not impact our argument, and is not the flaw.
D
legislative compromise inevitably results in popular dissatisfaction with politicians
Our argument concludes that dissatisfaction → compromising by politicians. This AC says compromising by politicians → dissatisfaction. This AC does not match the author’s logic or their mistaken assumption.
E
only elected public servants tend to elicit dissatisfaction among the public
Our argument never assumes this — it centers on elected representatives, but never limits this phenomenon to just elected representatives. People could also be dissatisfied with appointed representatives, but our author never tells us.
Summarize Argument
In incredibly high-flown language, the commentator concludes that modern culture threatens national identities. This is because fringe movements are becoming more prominent, and fringe movements contribute to the erosion of traditional hallmarks of national cultures—dogmas, religions, ideologies, and so on.
Notable Assumptions
In order for modern culture to threaten national identities, the commentator must assume that national identities are contingent on shared dogmas, religions, ideologies, etc. The commentator must also assume that fringe movements are part of modern culture rather than reactions to that same culture.
A
New national identities are often forged out of conflicts among diverse groups.
If the identities that emerge are “new,” then modern culture indeed is a threat to current national identities.
B
A stable national identity is typically a composite of a staggering number of subcultures.
National identities don’t rely on shared institutions. Instead, national cultures are a collection of subcultures. Modern culture thus doesn’t necessarily challenge national cultures, at least not by eroding institutions.
C
The rate of cultural change in most countries will soon change drastically.
We have no idea how that rate of cultural change will change. Besides, this tells us nothing about the effects of modern culture.
D
It is preferable to have a pluralistic rather than a monolithic national culture.
We don’t care about what’s preferable. We’re interested in how modern culture changes national identities.
E
A culture with a solidified national identity tends to have more social problems than one without such an identity.
Like (D), we don’t care about whether national identities are a good or a bad thing. We’re only interested in how modern culture changes national identities.