PT19 Section 2: #10

ampm
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:02 pm

PT19 Section 2: #10

Postby ampm » Tue May 07, 2013 3:15 pm

Please let me know if this is against policy or something.

I can see why the answer may be A but I'm not convinced that B can't be the answer.

for A: Who says that news media will even play a role here? We have no information on whether or not people voting even watch the news media. That is why I didn't chose this answer

for B: If politicians are known to be oversimply arguments, etc and come across as not convincing then wouldn't this hurt the statement that they should adopt the tactic in the stimulus? Politicians would oversimply their opponent's arguments and so instead of coming across as trustworthy, they would be coming across as not convincing thus hurting their chances.

Would like some clarification here. Appreciate it.

User avatar
CardozoLaw09
Posts: 1744
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: PT19 Section 2: #10

Postby CardozoLaw09 » Tue May 07, 2013 3:26 pm

ampm wrote:for A: Who says that news media will even play a role here? We have no information on whether or not people voting even watch the news media. That is why I didn't chose this answer


Other than the medium of news media, how else would a politician's views be conveyed to the public? The argument is that acknowledging opposing views is going to help the politician win votes; people are informed of the views of the politician through the media, so if there's no control over what parts of the speech the media reports, then there's no guarantee that this argumentative strategy will have an impact since that part of the speech may not be included in what the media reports.

ampm wrote:for B: If politicians are known to be oversimply arguments, etc and come across as not convincing then wouldn't this hurt the statement that they should adopt the tactic in the stimulus? Politicians would oversimply their opponent's arguments and so instead of coming across as trustworthy, they would be coming across as not convincing thus hurting their chances.


B doesn't address the part about politicians' acknowledgement of opposing views and how this might affect their chances of winning. B talks about oversimplifying their own arguments which is irrelevant to the argument.

melmoththewanderer
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 12:31 pm

Re: PT19 Section 2: #10

Postby melmoththewanderer » Tue May 07, 2013 3:30 pm

Great question.

For letter B, this applies mostly to arguments that are one-sided or those that oversimplifies the issue. The scenario given in the paragraph applies to a politician who doesn't simplify the issue and who considers opposing position. So B is out of scope.

We're also given that this technique is effective.

ampm
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:02 pm

Re: PT19 Section 2: #10

Postby ampm » Tue May 07, 2013 5:50 pm

CardozoLaw09 wrote:
ampm wrote:for A: Who says that news media will even play a role here? We have no information on whether or not people voting even watch the news media. That is why I didn't chose this answer


Other than the medium of news media, how else would a politician's views be conveyed to the public? The argument is that acknowledging opposing views is going to help the politician win votes; people are informed of the views of the politician through the media, so if there's no control over what parts of the speech the media reports, then there's no guarantee that this argumentative strategy will have an impact since that part of the speech may not be included in what the media reports.

ampm wrote:for B: If politicians are known to be oversimply arguments, etc and come across as not convincing then wouldn't this hurt the statement that they should adopt the tactic in the stimulus? Politicians would oversimply their opponent's arguments and so instead of coming across as trustworthy, they would be coming across as not convincing thus hurting their chances.


B doesn't address the part about politicians' acknowledgement of opposing views and how this might affect their chances of winning. B talks about oversimplifying their own arguments which is irrelevant to the argument.


Politician's views can be conveyed through town halls as well. But we don't know and thats the key thing. We don't know how they're conveyed.

The reason for B is that politicians simplify arguments in general. Hence if they simplify their opponent's as well then instead of coming across as being trustworthy they would come across as being not convincing.

Some of the things I may be thinking may be stretching things though.

ampm
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:02 pm

Re: PT19 Section 2: #10

Postby ampm » Tue May 07, 2013 5:51 pm

melmoththewanderer wrote:Great question.

For letter B, this applies mostly to arguments that are one-sided or those that oversimplifies the issue. The scenario given in the paragraph applies to a politician who doesn't simplify the issue and who considers opposing position. So B is out of scope.

We're also given that this technique is effective.


How do we know he doesn't oversimplify? Then again maybe politicians gunning for the national political office don't oversimplify.

I may be making too many stretches in my reasoning.

ampm
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:02 pm

Re: PT19 Section 2: #10

Postby ampm » Tue May 07, 2013 6:01 pm

I guess the main thing is the word "many" in B and the word "typically" in A.

Many people not liking the politican isn't as strong as the politician typically having no control over the media

melmoththewanderer
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 12:31 pm

Re: PT19 Section 2: #10

Postby melmoththewanderer » Tue May 07, 2013 6:23 pm

Another good question.

Here's my take. Answer choice B applies when they oversimplify or when they are one-sided.

We know for sure that he isn't one-sided. The stimulus tells us this. We don't know for sure that he over simplifies and that's why this answer choice does not weaken the argument. He might or he might not... notice that it doesn't clearly tip the balance either way.

ampm wrote:
melmoththewanderer wrote:Great question.

For letter B, this applies mostly to arguments that are one-sided or those that oversimplifies the issue. The scenario given in the paragraph applies to a politician who doesn't simplify the issue and who considers opposing position. So B is out of scope.

We're also given that this technique is effective.


How do we know he doesn't oversimplify? Then again maybe politicians gunning for the national political office don't oversimplify.

I may be making too many stretches in my reasoning.

sighsigh
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Re: PT19 Section 2: #10

Postby sighsigh » Tue May 07, 2013 7:38 pm

PT#19, S#2 (LR1), Q#10 is about a premier and reshuffling cabinet members. I guess I'm missing something?




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”