Self-study
P: Because an elected official needs the support of a political party to be effective, the independent candidate for the legislature cannot possibly be an effective legislator if she wins.
██ █ █████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ███████████ ███ ███ ███ ███████ ██ █ █████████ ██████ █████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████ ███ ██ ███ ███ █████
Stimulus Breakdown
Since Q is responding to P, our first step is understanding P's argument. P concludes that an independent candidate won't be an effective legislator if she wins. Why not? Because elected officials require a political party's support to be effective. In other words, P claims that party support is a necessary condition for effectiveness.
In disagreeing, Q offers a counter-example: the current legislator, who is supported by a party, but who is still ineffective. Q claims that this rebuts the principle that party support is necessary for effectiveness.
Objective: Identify a Flaw in Q's Argument
The issue here is that Q treats party support as a sufficient condition for effectiveness, despite P having proposed it as a necessary condition. In other words, Q commits sufficient-necessary confusion. This shows that Q misunderstood P's argument.
11.
Which one of the following ██ ███ ████ █████████ ██ █████ ██████████
a
It simply contradicts █████ █████ ███████ ████████ ████████ ███████ ███
Q contradicts P's claim, but does offer evidence for that contradiction: a counter-example. The problem is that Q's evidence reveals a misunderstanding of P's argument, not that Q has no evidence at all.
b
It does not ████████ ███ ███████████ ████ █ █████████ █████ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ████ ██████ ██ ██ ███ ███ ██ ██ ████████████
At best, this is a problem with P's argument. Since Q shifts to discussing the current legislator, who has a party's support, (B) isn't relevant to Q's argument.
c
It fails to ███████ █ ███████ ██████████ ███ █ ███ ██████████ ████ ████████████████
Both P and Q use the term "effective" without any problems about its meaning. The issue is that Q treats effectiveness as a necessary condition following from party support, whereas for P, it's party support that's necessary for effectiveness.
d
It presupposes what ██ ██ ██ █████████████ █ ██████████ ████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ █ █████████ █████ ██ █████ ██ ██ ████████████████
Firstly, this is a claim that P makes, not Q. Secondly, this claim isn't P's conclusion, but rather a stated premise leading to a distinct conclusion. So not only is this not Q's flaw, it's not P's flaw either.
e
It mistakenly interprets █ ██ ██ ████████ ████ █ ██████ ████████ ██████ ████ ██ █████████ ████ █ ██████████████ ██████████████
P claims that