The excuse for not voting that is most commonly given by citizens is that the two major political parties do not offer competent candidates or meaningful policies and positions. The nonvoting citizen believes that by expressing dissatisfaction as a consumer in the political process by not casting his or her ballot, the parties will put forward better candidates and positions. But this misconceives the role of voter as that of consumer. In the marketplace, defection to another product or failure to purchase a product sends a powerful message that results in change, improvement, and innovation. But not voting in the political process will not produce a smorgasbord, but rather, will result in a menu with a single entree and two side dishes.

1- The author does NOT address which of the following?
A) the results from people not participating in the electoral process
B) consequences of a consumer's refusal to purchase a product
C) how citizens can effectively express dissatisfaction with the two major political parties
D) why many citizens refuse to vote
E) differences between the role of the voter and that of the consumer

2- The author attempts to make her point by
A) constructing a simile
B) discrediting an analogy
C) making a circular argument
D) offering a unique hypothesis
E) presenting new evidence
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

C.


A seems good. camparing a consumer to a voter.
author tells an analogy but don't discredit it (I guess)..not B

anyway, I liked the word smorgasbord. Scandinavian huh!!

IMO
E (C, is mentioned in the passage, Voter expresses himself against parties by not voting, while (E) I think is not clearly mentioned in the passage)
A

1. C
2. B

This part of the passage refutes E

"But this misconceives the role of voter as that of consumer. In the marketplace, defection to another product or failure to purchase a product sends a powerful message that results in change, improvement, and innovation. But not voting in the political process will not produce a smorgasbord, but rather, will result in a menu with a single entree and two side dishes."

It clearly states that there is misconception of the role of voter as that of consumer. If a customer rejects a product by buying another product or by not buying the defective product, it results in change of the product on the better side. However, if a voter rejects voting, it results in changes on the worse side. If I understand the analogy correctly, it means that we get a government with no clear majority for any party, whcih leads to chaos.

Any other views??



_________________

Awaiting response,

Thnx & Rgds,
Chandra