tarun wrote:
A political candidate committed to the principal tenets of a political party may not always explain the implications of his or her party commitment to the voters in full detail. Adele Richardson, for example, is a minor-party candidate in contention for a seat on the school board. She is not likely to inform conservative voters in her district that the national leadership of her party has recently recommended that school curricula be more closely monitored by agencies of the federal government.
Each of the following is assumed in the argument above EXCEPT:
(A) A political candidate is likely to be more interested in winning an election than in proselytizing the electorate. >>> A political candidate will not try to convert the opinion of the voters...rather he/she will try to comply with voter's opinion. It is assumed otherwise Adele Richardson would have tried to convince people of her party's position.
(B) The candidate of any party is likely to support the policy decisions made by the national leadership. >>> Adele Richardson is complying with the party by not telling conservative voter's about part's position.
(C) All candidates for such community positions as membership on the school board must have commitments to national parties. CORRECT
(D) Conservatives in Adele Richardson's district do not support federal intervention in decisions made by community school officials. >>>> Obviously, that's why Adele Richardson is not telling voters about the party position.
(E) Voters in Adele Richardson's district are not fully aware of the policy statements made by the national leadership of her party.>>>> Obviously,Voters are not aware, otherwise complete argument doesn't make any sense..!!
close
33% (01:55) correct
