Political Candidate: Government subsidized prescription drug plans that would allow individuals significant choice in determining their benefits and costs are deceptively appealing to numerous stakeholders. However, buying prescription drug coverage, like buying health insurance coverage, is not like buying a car. The consumer cannot predict his or her future health needs. Moreover, the administrators of the choice-based drug plans under consideration are allowed to change the drugs they cover and the prices they charge at any time; this renders informed consumer choice meaningless and makes securing appropriate coverage a crap shoot. Older and disabled individuals, the predominant consumers of government subsidized prescription drug plans, should be offered drug coverage alternatives that do not force them to gamble with their health.

In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A.The first is a fact that the candidate argues against; the second is the ultimate claim that the candidate supports.
B.The first is an observation which the candidate acknowledges as true but to which he is ultimately opposed; the second is a claim that the candidate uses as evidence to support his ultimate position.
C.The first is an observation that the candidate acknowledges as true but unfortunate; the second is an assertion that the candidate makes to support his ultimate position.
D.The first is an observation that the candidate argues against; the second is an observation that the candidate supports.
E.The first is an observation made by the candidate; the second is an assertion that the candidate ultimately opposes.

IMO C. The first is an observation that the candidate acknowledges as true but unfortunate; the second is an assertion that the candidate makes to support his ultimate position.

Political Candidate: Government subsidized prescription drug plans that would allow individuals significant choice in determining their benefits and costs are deceptively appealing to numerous stakeholders. The candidate agrees that the drug plan would allow individuals significant choice (TRUE) but it is deceptively appealing (unfortunate).

The consumer cannot predict his or her future health needs.. This is an assertion because the next sentence strats with "moreover" and instroduces more seertion. "Moreover, the administrators of the choice-based drug plans under consideration are allowed to change the drugs they cover and the prices they charge at any time;

Conclusion in the passage is: this renders informed consumer choice meaningless and makes securing appropriate coverage a crap shoot. Older and disabled individuals, the predominant consumers of government subsidized prescription drug plans, should be offered drug coverage alternatives that do not force them to gamble with their health.

Why B is wonrg? What is the main diff between conclusion and assertion?

Thanks in advance

i dont think D is correct..the second part is not an observation but an assertion..this is the view of the politician and he wants you to believe it..

therfore C is best

Hi All,

Still confused ......

What is the main diff between conclusion and assertion?????

B for me. In C, I don't think the first bold face is unfortunate. B is clearer.