PT 48 - LR SECTION 1 - #24

[paulmar]

I cannot figure out why E is the correct answer. It makes no sense to me.

If anything, it seems that it would strengthen the idea that an education party isn't viable.

It never says anything about joining a party, in fact, it says that you can either join or donate.

If 26% would join, 16% would donate....then it strengthens the argument if the two don't overlap.

It never says that joining the party is necessary to its existence...?? Maybe if it said "takes for granted that" instead of "fails to consider"..it might make sense b/c that would create an overlap.

Help!

[Tex_Mex13]

Just did this one.

To be viable in the long run, you need 30% to donate or to join.

from the poll of eligible voters:
26% would join
16% would donate

If some of those potential donaters are not in the group that would join, then that means that they could possibly gather 30?% by adding the two together.

For example:

let's say, of the 16% who are donating, 10% are also joining the party. Then that means we can add the remaining 6% to the 26% who would join, and have over 30% support, and thus, be viable in the long run.

Sorry, I know this is a poorly written explanation.

[paulmar]

Ok, I figured out this answer and it's just what I suspected.

E) Some of the eligible voters who would donate money to an education party might not be prepared to join such a party.

Because the stems says that it "fails to consider that", it's essentially doing the same thing as if it were "taking it for granted".

It is saying that the 26% (Joiners) and the 16% (Donors) are separate groups of statistics, which would surpass a necessary 30% in support.

So, basically:

Those who donate, aren't the same as those who join - thus making the surpassing of 30% possible.

So is the assumption it makes that: Support can be gained by both actions (joining and donating), but the 26% of Joiners also comprise the 16% of Donors, so it isn't possible to surpass 30%? It seems that's the only possible assumption as the "either joining or donating" but not both wouldn't make sense if E is the right answer, b/c E would strengthen the idea that it is unlikely by saying they are in fact separate statistics and, separately, are under 30%.

Is this correct?

[paulmar]

So my biggest question is then:

Either/Or can mean both then, right? - that you don't have to have only Joiners or only Donors but can include both? And E clearly separates the donors from the joiners, saying that the 16% doesn't also join as well... and that they can be added together as separate entities..or, rather...since E says that some don't join, it's assuming that at least 1 does join...so really... E could provide the following possibility: 15% Donate and 26% Join (can't be the full 16% b/c E implies that at least 1 joins if some do not).

Right?

[nycparalegal]

Let me get this straight.

So it's answer E because "if some of the eligible voters who would donate money to an education party might not be prepared to join such a party" then that would also mean "some of the eligible voters who would donate money to an education party might be prepared to join such a party." Correct?

That by saying some would not that also means some would right?

[nycparalegal]

Am I wrong with my above logic?

[jamesieee]

Am I wrong with my above logic?

That strikes me as flawed logic. "Some" does not mean "not all" - in fact, it includes "all". By your logic, the statement "some oranges might not be apples" would necessarily mean "some oranges might be apples."

E is the correct answer because the conclusion in the stimulus is drawn with the flawed assumption that all donors will also join. That is the only way that the speaker can say for certain that there are less than 30 percent of eligible voters who will donate or join. E attacks that assumption by suggesting that some donors may not join, and when that assumption is removed, the conclusion no longer follows. It is irrelevant how many donors actually do not join - the fact that some (even one) may not join entirely undermines the journalist's argument.