PrepTest 142

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
We criticize our political leaders, but we elected them. The real question is how do our systems let them get elected. So criticizing leaders is a "pointless distraction."

Answer Anticipation:
There's a huge word in the conclusion here that we should immediately focus on when we see it—"pointless." That extreme word suggests that there is absolutely no benefit to discussing the flaws of leaders, and that all time spent doing that should be focused elsewhere—as the argument suggests, on the nation's institutions and procedures.

Since the argument's conclusion is so extreme and relies on there being no point in discussing the flaws of leaders, then the correct answer is likely going to rule out a potential reason that discussing those flaws would have a point to it. And since the argument specifically recommends discussing institutions and procedures, the correct answer is likely to tie into that—saying that discussing the flaws of leaders doesn't also shed light on problems with the institutions and procedures.

Answer Explanation:
This answer rules out one reason that it might not be pointless to discuss the flaws of the leaders, tying that discussion into a discussion that the Editorial does believe has a point—discussing the institutions and procedures that get those leaders elected in the first place. If discussing the flaws of leaders reveals things about these institutions/procedures, then there is a point to discussing them and the argument falls apart. This answer, therefore, is required for the argument to work.

Key Takeaway:
First, absolute language (e.g., "pointless") can be contradicted by a single counterexample. As such, arguments featuring an absolute conclusion can be weakened by very weak statements, and they need to be backed up by playing out universally.

Second, when a separate consideration is raised in the stimulus, the correct answer generally ties into it. Here, the conclusion was that a certain discussion was pointless. The premises brought up a discussion that the Editorial believed wasn't pointless. The correct answer tied back into that discussion.

Incorrect. The problem doesn't have to get worse for the argument to work—if the political discourse continues to discuss the flaws of leaders at the current level, those discussions could still (would still!) be pointless.

Incorrect. This answer is too extreme in stating that the procedures and institutions "ensure" that "only" flawed people get elected. These procedures and institutions could strongly support the election of predominantly flawed individuals and the argument would still hold together. Additionally, if anything, this answer would relate to an argument concluding that discussing procedures and institutions should be the focus, not one saying discussing flawed leaders shouldn't be.

Incorrect. The argument states that the discussion "tend[s] to" focus on leaders instead of on the institutions and procedures that elect them, so it doesn't require no one to have examined those areas.

Incorrect. Being "pointless" isn't the same as making the problem worse. It's not required that discussing the flaws increases dissatisfaction in order to establish that it's pointless—it could leave dissatisfaction at the current level and still not have a purpose.