Audiences find a speaker more convincing if the speaker begins a speec

I Feel answer to be C and not A .

Experts Help .

I fell for C as well. I immediately eliminated A for out of scope.
I am trying to convince myself why A is right instead of C.
Can anybody explain why C is wrong?

(A) Political candidates typically have no control over which excerpts from their speeches will be reported by the news media.
-- This statement if true will definitely make the augmentative technique less effective. If the media reports only the starting part of the speech, the whole purpose of the speech will get void. Hence A is a correct answer choice.

(B) Many people do not find arguments made by politicians convincing, since the arguments are often one-sided or oversimplify the issues.
-- Irrelevant.

(C) People decide which political candidate to vote for more on the basis of their opinions of the candidate's character than on the exact positions of the candidate.
-- Not related to the argument.

(D) People regard a political candidate more favorably if they think that the candidate respects an opponent's position even while disagreeing with it.
-- No question about the opponent's position. Hence D is not a correct answer choice.

(E) Political candidates have to address audiences of many different sizes and at many different locations in the course of a political campaign.
Totally irrelevant.

I initially chose C, but after careful review, I think it's A.

the argument: "this technique is so effective is that it makes the speaker appear fair-minded and trustworthy...candidates for national political office who wish to be successful in winning votes should use this argumentative technique in their speeches."

In other words, this argument technique is effective because it makes the candidate appear more trustworthy and therefore enhances the public's opinion of the candidate's character.

When you look at C, it actually strengthens the conclusion: "People decide which political candidate to vote for more on the basis of their opinions of the candidate's character than on the exact positions of the candidate."

All other choices can be eliminated by POE, answer is A.

A. Political candidates typically have no control over which excerpts from their speeches will be reported by the news media.

Weakens, because in this case the technique will not be effective


C. People decide which political candidate to vote for more on the basis of their opinions of the candidate's character than on the exact positions of the candidate.

Argument does not concentrate on position of candidate, rather it concentrates on specific technique. So, out

A wins

Hello Mike,

could you please help me with above question?

Premise 1: Argue against your position before supporting it
Premise 2: shows you as fair minded and trustworthy
conclusion: to win votes use above technique

The OA given is A.

I am not comfortable with A, since we need to assume that medium used is only news media.
I choose C. C accepts character(premise 2) without position (premise 1). By whatever means if you establish character, you win votes. Hence i feel C weakens.

Could you please point what I missed here?

Dear mjana89,
I'm happy to respond.

I don't know the source of this question, but I think it's a good question, and a tricky one.

Our job is to find a weakener, something that weakens the argument. I would say that, while (C) is a weakener in a way, it's not a strong weakener. By contrast, (A) is a powerful weakener.

First, let's look at (C):
(C) People decide which political candidate to vote for more on the basis of their opinions of the candidate's character than on the exact positions of the candidate.
The exact wording is crucial here. This is NOT saying that the exact positions are NOT influential in how people choose. Instead, it's saying that the candidate's character is most important, and the exact opinions are less important than character but not necessarily unimportant. If I deeply admire the character of Candidate X, but then Candidate X starts espousing opinions with which I completely disagree, according to this answer choice, those opinions are NOT going to have zero effect on me: in fact, with enough individual opinions on which I and Candidate X disagree, I might vote against Candidate X despite his admirable character. This choice leaves open this possibility, so it's still somewhat important for Candidate X to be persuasive. This choice, we might say, lessens the impact of the argument, reduces the urgency of the point being made, but doesn't obliterate the argument.

Now, let's look at (A):
(A) Political candidates typically have no control over which excerpts from their speeches will be reported by the news media.

First of all, I am not sure that I understand the distinction you are drawing between the "news media" and "media" in general. This is not a distinction that occurs in the argument itself. In my mind, "news media" means any reporting about current events on TV, on the radio, on internet news sites, or in printed newspapers and news journals. Insofar as one can glean facts about current events from, say, Wikipedia or Facebook, we could have to include those sites as "news media." Even humorous shows, such as Stephen Colbert's late night program, would be considered "new media" insofar as he discusses, analyzes, and lampoons current events. By definition, any form of media in which the opinions & words & actions of currently campaigning politicians were presented and/or discussed would have to be "news media." The kind of media that would not be "news media" at all would be, for example, the cooking channel, or an all-music radio station, or a website about the history of bowling---places in which absolutely no mention of current events would be made.

I think (A) is a brilliant and subtle OA. Suppose I am the candidate. Suppose my position is that I want to lower taxes for the middle class, and I want people to associate me with that position. Suppose I follow the advice in this argument, and begin a speech with two minutes about how raising taxes on the middle class might be beneficial for the country before I go on to explain why I think lowering these taxes is a better idea. Well, then it's certainly possible--in fact, given the proclivities of the media, somewhat predictable--that the next day there would be headlines screaming: "Mike Says Taxing the Middle Class a Good Idea!" Thus, the few people who heard my whole speech or took the time to read the transcript of the whole speech would understand my real position, but I don't think it's a wild assumption to say that many many more people know just the screaming headlines than know all the facts. Thus, I would be strongly associated with a position that is not mine, and this could be devastating to my election hopes. Thus, (A) is a powerful weakener and is the best answer.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

When I read option A I did not even intend to look at other options. A - the best.

Prethinking: we have to find an option that shows us that the recommendation is not effective.

B. It may be true. In general. But it does not say anything about the effectiveness.
C. Sure. It is a nice one. This option says that nothing that politician says matters. So the effectiveness of recommendation = Zero.
D. It strengthens. So the reccomendation is effective. > 0.
E. It may be true. In general. But it does not say anything about the effectiveness.

A. This option says us that effectiveness of recommendation may be negative. Because news media can take the first part of candidat's speach and dismiss the second one.

C is 'Incorrect' because it strengthens the Argument - Implying - a candidate SHOULD "speak in favor of his opponent for a little while before completely saying against him".

But, we have to find a Weakener - that the above-mentioned strategy can be Harmful or bad for the politician.

(C) People decide which political candidate to vote for more on the basis of their opinions of the candidate's character than on the exact positions of the candidate.

The argument says that ''speaker appear fair-minded and trustworthy" if ''if the speaker begins a speech by arguing briefly against his or her position" . So the option (C) actually strengthen the argument.

There's really no such thing as out of scope for this type of question. Anything that is true and would explain the phenomenon is within scope. OOS applies more so to questions asking to derive a conclusion from a set of premises. In that case, the conclusions must be within the scope of the premises provided.

Simplify the argument:
(Technique X is to argue against own positions before accepting.)
Technique X is effective because it makes the speaker appear fair-minded and trustworthy.

Therefore:
Candidate can win votes by using this technique X in their speeches. [take note that the goal is to WIN VOTES, options should directly impact the likelihood of winning votes to be relevant.]

If I were to rephrase the statement in my words: What is technique X and why is it effective. Therefore, we should use it for our plan, whose goal is to win votes.

Pick an option that can cause the plan NOT to work:

A) Political candidates typically have no control over which excerpts from their speeches will be reported by the news media.

This one is saying that Technique X cannot be implemented successfully because candidates have no control over which part of their speeches is shown to the audience on air. It directly impact the outcome of the plan, which is to win votes. Therefore, it weakens the argument.

(C) People decide which political candidate to vote for more on the basis of their opinions of the candidate's character than on the exact positions of the candidate.

This one is saying candidate are not judged on their stance but on their character. Remember Technique X is so effective because it emanates speaker’s fair-minded character as discussed above? So it increases the probability of winning votes. Therefore, this option actually strengthen the argument.