Editorial: In rejecting the plan proposed by parliament to reform the electoral process, Conclusion the president clearly acted in the best interests of the nation. ██████ ███ ██████ █████████ ██████ ████████ ████ ███ █████████ ████ ████ ████████ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████ ███ ██████████ ███████████ ███████ ███ ████████ ███ █████ ███ ██████████ ██████████ █████ ██████ ████████ █████████ ████ ███████ ████ ██████████ ███████
The editorial leads with its main point: the president was acting in the nation's best interests by rejecting the parliament's plan to reform the electoral process. The next sentence addresses people who disagree, saying they should remember that the president made this decision fully aware of the hostile reactions it would inspire at home and abroad. The final sentence adds that citizens who care about the nation's well-being should applaud the president's "courageous action."
The main point of this editorial is that the president "clearly acted in the best interests of the nation." The only support provided for this conclusion is that the president made the decision "knowing it would be met with fierce opposition at home and widespread disapproval abroad." The last sentence of the stimulus is pretty much filler.
But making an action in full awareness that it will lead to hostile reactions doesn't necessarily mean that the decision was a good one, or in the interests of the nation. Sometimes a decision meets a hostile reaction because it was a bad decision. So the only premise provided doesn't actually support the judgment made in the conclusion.
The reasoning in the editorial ██ ██ █████ ███████
it confuses a ███████ ████ ██ ██████ █████████ ██ █ █████████ ██████ ████ █ ███████ ████ ██ █████████ ██ █████████ █████████ ███████████████
Inaccurate. Though we might infer that the author sees making a decision despite hostile reactions as a "desirable," if not essential, quality for a leader, the stimulus doesn't focus on this distinction. The problem in the stimulus is that the premise doesn't support the conclusion, not some confusion between some "desirable" trait and some "essential" trait. We would be imposing our own value judgments about what is "desirable" versus "essential" if we said that. So this flaw just doesn't describe something going on in the stimulus.
it fails to ███████████ ███████ ████████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ████████ ██ ████ █ ███████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ████ ████████
This is correct. The evidence the author provides — that the president made this decision knowing it would be met with hostility — might support the author's assessment of this action as "courageous." It doesn't, however, establish the author's main point: that the decision was in the nation's best interests.
it ignores the ██████████ ████ ████ ████████ ████ ██ ██████ ████████ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ ██████ ████
Incorrect. The author doesn't make any claims about how many citizens focus on "narrow partisan interests." Even if he did, that phrase only shows up in the last sentence, which isn't an essential part of the argument's main claims.
it overlooks the ███████████ ████ █████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ████ █████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████████ ███ █████
Incorrect. Even if this were true, it wouldn't weaken the argument. Even if there was support for the president's decision from within the president's party, it could still be true that there would be a strongly hostile reaction at home and abroad — and that premise would still be insufficient to establish the editorial's conclusion.
it depends on ███ ███████████ ██████████ ████ ███ ████ ████████ ██ █ ██████████ ████ ███████████ █████ ████ ██████ ████████ █████████
Incorrect. The author doesn't assume that all of the parliament's plans serve only "narrow partisan interests." It's not even clear that he assumes this plan would necessarily serve only partisan interests. "Narrow partisan interests" are mentioned only in a rhetorical appeal to "citizens" in the last sentence, not in an assessment of the parliament's proposal.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic