Logical reasoning PrepTest 115 · Section 2 · Question 9

Incorrect. Lorraine isn't arguing that a referendum can't be held because it's too difficult, but rather that it shouldn't be held because the results would lead to a foreign policy disaster.

Incorrect. This answer suggests that the general public couldn't be fully informed on foreign policy issues, which aligns with Lorraine's argument.

Incorrect. This answer addresses what officials would do, but it doesn't bring up how the general public would respond. Lorraine's contention that they can't or won't become informed on the issues could still hold even if public officials are trying to inform them. There's also no indication that such efforts to persuade, even if listened to, would inform the general public instead of providing disinformation.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
C: Elections bring up multiple issues, so they don't provide a mandate on any one issue, and so foreign policy decisions should go to referenda.

L: The public won't get informed on those issues, so putting them to referenda would result in bad things.

Answer Anticipation:
We need to counter Lorraine's objection, so we're looking for something that weakens her argument.

Lorraine contends that subjecting every foreign policy decision to a referendum would lead to a "disaster." Why is this? Because the general public—those who would vote in a referendum—can't or won't learn about foreign policy issues. As such, their votes would be uninformed.

However, there's no indication that such uninformed votes would lead to a foreign policy disaster! There's no premise or principle established by Lorraine that connects those concepts. As such, we should consider all answers that call that jump into question.

Answer Explanation:
This answer doesn't precisely match our anticipation, but it does address the premise of Lorraine's argument that the general public can't/won't be informed on foreign policy issues. If they aren't informed because they believe they have no power over it, then giving them that power in the form of referenda could lead to them becoming willing to learn these issues. That weakens Lorraine's argument, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
We didn't note it while anticipating an answer because it was hidden, but there is a causal element to this argument—the conclusion is that one thing will "lead" to another. The correct answer ended up being a reversed causality-style answer. If you run into a question where the issue ends up becoming apparent after you find the correct answer, it's a good idea to create a new "rule" for yourself to spot that issue in the future. A good one here? When the conclusion talks about one thing "leading" to another, start to think about Correlation/Causation flaws!

Incorrect. This answer provides a reason not to implement referenda, which aligns with Lorraine's argument.