LR Question 23 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Editorial: This political party has repeatedly expressed…
QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption
CONCLUSION: This party’s policy is inconsistent.
REASONING: The party has said education spending is a worthy goal but it has also said that the government should not increase spending on education.
ANALYSIS: Sometimes we don’t have enough money for all goals that are worthy. If you had to choose, would you support feeding the children or educating the children?
It could be the party thinks education is a good idea but that other priorities are more important. We need an assumption that shows this still amounts to inconsistency.
___________
- This is almost right. But it says vote against. We don’t know if the political party has actually voted down any proposals. The stimulus only talks about the party’s public statements.
So while this assumption is helpful, it is not necessary. - The argument would still be ok if the consistent position “is not usually the course of action that will reduce spending.” “Usually” doesn’t tell us much about a particular case.
- Actually the argument is assuming that this isn’t true. This sounds like something the party would argue.
- CORRECT. The negation is that a consistent political policy could say that something was worthy but still shouldn’t be supported. That destroys the argument’s only evidence.
- This only talks about whether inconsistency is a good idea. The argument is talking about whether or not the party is inconsistent.
For this one I got D because I removed the double negation. I just want to clarify that this is not the same as using the negation technique to find the answer for NA questions.?
The two nots made it hard for me to understand what it was saying
Yes, removing a double negative is just translating.
I don’t like not walking = I like walking
Whereas a negation would be taking “I like walking” and negating to “I do not like walking”