Q4 - campaigning for election

[esmail.dana]

Hi,

I was just wondering how you would negate answer choice C. Any help would be appreciated!

Thanks

[timmydoeslsat]

Hi,

I was just wondering how you would negate answer choice C. Any help would be appreciated!

Thanks

When negating answer choices, we want to consider the statement itself and what it contains.

We usually want to negate the action verb of the statement.

For instance: Timmy plays tennis.
Negated: Timmy does not play tennis.

We want to concentrate on what is the true action verb of the sentence.

Those that do not want to walk dogs in the neighborhood will meet at the coffee shop.

Negated: Those do not want to walk dogs in the neighborhoods will not meet at the coffee shop.

When we have quantifying statements in a sentence, we can simply negate those.

Some = none
Most = Not most (half or less)
All = Not all

The logical negation for each quantifier listed is shown before and after the equals sign.

So if I said: Timmy always goes to the corner store on Mondays.
Negated: Timmy does not always go to the corner store on Mondays.

And so forth...

With answer choice C, focus on the true action verb.

"The interests of local const. are well served only by X"

Negated: The interests of local const. are not well served only by X.

In others words, other things can serve the interests of local const.

For this stimulus, try negating choice A. If it never conflicts...this argument becomes irrelevant and ridiculous.

[esmail.dana]

Thanks! But when we negate A, couldn't we assume that those campaigning for election maybe aren't serving the constituencies for another reason even though the interests don't clash?

[timmydoeslsat]

Thanks! But when we negate A, couldn't we assume that those campaigning for election maybe aren't serving the constituencies for another reason even though the interests don't clash?

That's true, but if you did that...you have ruined the entire point of the argument. This argument does the following:

The politician caters to the interests of national party officials.

Thus, the politician often fails to serve the interests of the local constituency.

For that jump to be logical based on the evidence given, the interests of national party officials must be precluding at least some interests of the local constituency. We must consider what this argument (evidence + conclusion) relies on to have a chance at being valid.

[WaltGrace1983]

When campaigning, must cater to interests of nat'l party
-->
Campaigners often fail to serve the interests of local constituencies

The assumption here is that catering to the interest of nation party will in some way preclude the interest of local constituencies. Maybe the interests of national parties are exactly the interests of local constituencies!

(B) Don't care about winning reelection. This is irrelevant.

(C) Strengthens. However, this is not necessary. The conditional breaks down like this:

Local constituencies well-served --> elected officials who do not cater to the interest of nat'l party & no one else

In other words, (C) is saying that ONLY those who cater to the nat'l party will fail to serve local constituents. Does that NEED to be true? No.

For (C) to be right, it would have to soften the language. (C) would have to say something like "the interests of local constituents are not well-served by those who cater to the interests of national party officials." This, however, is basically a restatement of the argument and would be unlikely to show up on a real test.

(D) Don't care about obligations.

(E) Don't care about reelection.

(A) is correct because it showcases that there ARE times when the interests of the national party clash with the interests of local constituencies. If this were NOT true, the argument wouldn't make any sense at all. Thus, (A) is correct.

[kimhyungjoon]

Stem: Necessary assumption question

Stimulus
Conclusion: Elected officials who campaign for reelection while still in office often fail to serve their constituencies' interests
Premise 1: Campaining for election frequently requires spending much time and energy on catering to national party officials
Premise 2: National party officials can help candidates to win election

Prephrase
Catering to national party officials is tantamount to failing to serve constituencies' interests

Answer choices
A: This is weaker than the prephrased answer but still sufficiently necessary
B: This weakens the argument (don't let the word "reelection" fool you)
C: This goes too far ("only")
D: Same as C
E: Whether incumbents seek reelection is irrelevant to the argument

[WendyQ765]

In this question, the premise is
Campaign for election →(frequently) Cater,

and the conclusion is
Campaign for election →(often) /serve local constituencies.

Answer choice A is
Cater →(sometimes) /serve LC.

But answer choice C is
serve LC →(only) /Cater.
C is too strong. This is a necessary assumption question. We just need “sometimes” rather than “only”.

[BernardB560]

Stem: Necessary assumption question

Stimulus
Conclusion: Elected officials who campaign for reelection while still in office often fail to serve their constituencies' interests
Premise 1: Campaining for election frequently requires spending much time and energy on catering to national party officials
Premise 2: National party officials can help candidates to win election

Prephrase
Catering for corporate events to national party officials is tantamount to failing to serve constituencies' interests

Answer choices
A: This is weaker than the prephrased answer but still sufficiently necessary
B: This weakens the argument (don't let the word "reelection" fool you)
C: This goes too far ("only")
D: Same as C
E: Whether incumbents seek reelection is irrelevant to the argument

A helpful breakdown like this really clarifies how to approach a necessary assumption question, especially when distinguishing between what's merely helpful versus what's required for the argument to hold.