Logical reasoning PrepTest 125 · Section 4 · Question 1

Incorrect. The argument deals only with democratic countries, so comparing them to undemocratic ones (which we don't have a measurement for as a baseline) is out of scope. Additionally, this answer suggests that it's harder to manipulate public opinion in democratic countries which, if anything, cuts against the argument.

Incorrect. First, there's no indication that someone being influenced is related to whether they recognize the techniques being used to influence them. Second, if anything, someone recognizing the manipulation would be less likely to fall for it, which cuts against the argument.

Incorrect. There's no indication if these limits are above or below the level that would allow for enough market penetration to influence elections. Second, if anything, by establishing that there's a limit, this answer cuts against the argument.

Incorrect. If anything, by suggesting that most voters don't watch TV or read publications with ads, this answer cuts against the argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Ads spend money to get people to buy things. Political strategists use their strategies to get people to vote for their candidate. Thus, election results in democratic countries aren't just a reflection of "unadulterated" voter preferences.

Answer Anticipation:
Notice the scope of the conclusion here—it doesn't mention the ads brought up in the argument at all. Instead, it states only that election results in democracies don't reflect the unadulterated opinion of voters.

Why does the Editorialist believe that to be true? Because political ads are using marketing techniques, which are designed to influence purchase decisions. However, there's no indication that the techniques used by consumer ads have an impact when used to influence voters. It's possible that voters have set opinions, and a negative ad won't influence how they view a given politician.

Any answer, therefore, that establishes the effectiveness of these advertising techniques in influencing voter preferences will strengthen this argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that political ads do influence voter preferences, thus strengthening the conclusion that democratic election results aren't an unadulterated reflection of voter preferences. Instead, they're adulterated by what the voter hears in a political ad, which changes their beliefs.

Key Takeaway:
Be very aware of the scope of the conclusion. Here, it'd be easy to read the conclusion as dealing with political ads, but that's never stated in the conclusion itself. Instead, the assumption of the argument deals with the effectiveness of ads, thus connecting the premises to the conclusion.