Hi Sohanm99,Good, careful reading. Your instinct to separate "favors a candidate" from "has fully decided" is the kind of thing that keeps you sharp. Here the key is to see how this particular
survey sorts people.
Notice how the option labels them. Choice C says:
"some undecided voters taking the survey may have claimed that they are in favor of one candidate." The option itself tells you these people
are genuinely undecided. So we don't have to debate their true state - that's given. The only question is: what did the survey
record them as?
How the survey buckets people. This survey has exactly two slots: you either say you're undecided, or you don't. The
40% figure is just "people who said they were undecided." The moment someone says
"I'm in favor of one candidate," they fall
out of that undecided bucket - the survey files them as decided. Whether they'll actually turn up to vote never enters into how the survey counts them.
So in C, people who are truly undecided
told the survey they favor a candidate, which pushed them out of the
40%. Their true undecided-ness was missed - the real undecided share is
higher than reported - the survey undervalues it. That's exactly the conclusion.
On your "may not be able to vote" point: that's a real-world possibility, but the argument never raises it, and it doesn't change the counting. The survey undercounts because of what people
claimed, not because of who eventually casts a ballot.
Quick way to feel the split:
- "I'm still torn between A and B" - survey files you as
undecided.
- "I like candidate A" - survey files you as
decided, even if deep down you're still wavering.
That second person is exactly who C describes - truly undecided, but counted as decided. That mismatch is what drives the undervaluation.
Answer: CSohanm99