how to deal with the question from PT #18 section2, 3and7?
Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:50 pm
the 3rd question is about the voting of each citizen of Mooresville, why the answer is A?
and why the 7th question chose B as the answer?
Re: how to deal with the question from PT #18 section2, 3and7?
Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:44 pm
For #3, The conclusion of the argument is that if you could only vote for a representative from your neighborhood and all the folks in Morresville would also campaign against incumbents but vote for one if she has the experience to represent the neighborhood's interests, then the council's membership would be substantially changed. Why? Because a majority of incumbents are running. That sort of makes sense - let's vote only for the good politicians, and we'll shake up that town council.
But what if everyone says, yeah, I agree with you, we should generally get rid of the incumbents, but the politician from my neighborhood is good (i.e., the one's with enough experience to...)? Then everyone would vote for an incumbent. It wouldn't matter that folks campaigned against other incumbents, because they could only vote for the one for their neighborhood. So, (A) must be true - we must have some folks NOT voting for their neighborhood incumbent if we're going to see some change.
(B) is irrelevant - there's no discussion of the number of voters.
(C) is similarly irrelevant - past attempts?
(D) is tempting - maybe we need the incumbents to be reaching the end of their terms to be able to shake up the council. But that's when we vote for folks - when their term is up! So, that actually allows us to vote for them again.
(E) is also tempting but it actually hurts the argument. We would want the newcomers - the challengers - to be better able to serve their neighborhoods, not worse!
Does that clear that up?