There are two supposedly conflicting hypotheses as to what makes for great national leaders: one is that such leaders successfully shape public opinion, and the other is that they are adept at reacting to it. ████████ ████████ █████ ██████████ ██ ████████ █████████ ██ █████████ █ ████████ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ███ ███████ ███████ █████ ████████ ██████ ██ █████ █████████ ███████████ ████ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ ██ ██████ ████████
The author concludes that great leaders can both shape and react to public opinion, contrary to what some people believe. Why? Because all leaders that have successfully passed programs in the legislature do both.
The author’s conclusion is about great leaders. But his support is about leaders who have successfully passed programs in the legislature. It’s not obvious that those are identical. Could some leaders be considered great for accomplishments that didn’t involve legislation?
Consequently, the author must assume that there’s at least some connection between passing legislative programs and being a great leader.
Which one of the following ██ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ████████
Having success getting ████████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ █ █████ ████████ ███████
It is impossible ██ ████████████ █████ ██████ ███████ ███████ ██ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ███
To lead, one ████ ██████ ████████████ █████ ██████ ███████ ██ ██ █████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ██ █████
Having a good ███████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██████ █ ██████ ██ █████ ██████ ████████
To be a █████ ██████ ███ ████ ███ ██ ██████ ██ ██████ ████████