PrepTest 122

Incorrect. Increasing voter turnout doesn't necessarily influence the outcome of an election. If the group watching the debate was about evenly split between the two candidates, then more of them showing up could result in the same outcome, just with more votes.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
People watching a debate have generally made up their minds, and those who haven't are usually unsure who won, so winning a debate doesn't help a candidate win.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument bases its conclusion on the impact of a certain event (a debate) on a different groups. Whenever an argument does this, it's important to track the groups and figure out the specifics. Do they represent everyone involved? Do they overlap? Are they distinct?

Here, there are two groups discussed—viewers watching the debate who are the most committed, and those watching the debate who are uncommitted. These are two distinct groups (or, at least, largely distinct, depending on how you read the stimulus), but they don't represent everyone involved.

What do we mean by that? Well, the conclusion is about the chances of a politician in winning an election—that's related to everyone who votes, not just those who watch the debate. While the debate, based on the information provided, might not influence the groups who watch it, it could potentially influence those who don't. It's hard to see how that could be the case, but in neglecting to address that group, the argument is neglecting a potentially significant portion of the electorate.

As such, we should consider any answer that discusses this group, especially those that suggest the debates could move the needle for that group.

Answer Explanation:
This answer brings up the group that the argument neglects—those who don't watch the debate. If that group has their voting behavior influenced by reports on the debate, then the debate could help someone win an election even if it doesn't change the minds of those who watch it.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument is discussing different groups, dig in to make sure you understand them. Are these groups distinct, or do they overlap? Do they represent everyone involved, or is there a group missing? Is the conclusion about the same group(s) as in the premises? Noting shifts or missing groups (or groups that overlap) is often key to finding the error in an argument's reasoning.

Incorrect. Even if there are differences of opinion on this front, there could still be a specific impact that winning" an election has on a candidate's chances of winning an election. The argument looks past the determination of who won to discuss what happens when someone does, in fact, win the debate, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. This answer is wishy—washy and neutral in that it doesn't commit to any particular influence—the influence is unpredictable" so it could be anything. Additionally, this influence only "may" be present. For all these reasons, we can eliminate it.

Incorrect. If anything, this answer aligns with the argument that debates don't have much of an influence on an election's outcome.