The journalist concludes that "it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year." How does the journalist arrive at this conclusion?
- Arnold Bergeron (AB) is a well-known businessman who has long been popular in the state.
- AB has often talked about running for governor, but he has never actually run for governor.
- According to recent news, AB has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy.
In other words, AB has taken a step that WOULD be necessary if he actually wanted to become a candidate. But does this necessarily imply that Bergeron will
very likely be a candidate for governor this year?
The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist's argument?
Quote:
A. Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?
In order to run for governor, a candidate would first have to submit a detailed list of his/her current financial holdings to the election commission. The requirement is that the candidate SUBMIT this information. The passage does NOT mention any requirements based on the CONTENTS of that financial information.
In other words, according to the passage, a potential candidate simply needs to
submit the required information. It doesn't matter whether the candidate has
greater financial holdings than the other potential candidates. Choice (A) is irrelevant and can be eliminated.
Quote:
B. Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission's financial disclosure requirements?
We already know that AB has fulfilled the election commission's financial disclosure requirements. Even if there are other ways to fulfill those requirements, it still seems as though AB has taken the first step towards running for governor. The answer to choice (B) might provide interesting information, but it would not help us evaluate the journalists' argument or conclusion. Eliminate (B).
Quote:
C. Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission?
The passage tells us that the journalist has learned that AB has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy. Regardless of whether that knowledge came directly from the election commission or from a secondary or tertiary source makes little difference.
Sure, knowing whether the journalist got the information from an unreliable source could certainly affect the argument. But would we be able to determine the
reliability of the source just by answering this question? For example, say that the answer to (C) were, "No, the information was obtained from the town council, which received its information directly from the election commission." Okay, we've answered the question, but do we have any grounds for questioning the accuracy of the information?
Certain answers to this question
could impact the author's argument. But we are looking for the question whose answer would be "most useful", so let's see if we can do better.
Quote:
D. Have Bergeron's financial holdings increased in value in recent years?
As explained for choice (A), we are not aware of any requirements based on the details of a potential candidate's holdings. According to the passage, a potential candidate fulfills the election commission's financial disclosure requirements simply by submitting the required information. As far as we can tell, it makes no difference whether AB's financial holdings have increased, decreased, or stayed the same. Eliminate (D).
Quote:
E. Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?
AB has taken a step that WOULD be necessary if he actually wanted to become a candidate. Based on that information, the journalist concludes that AB is
very likely be a candidate for governor this year.
But what if AB has taken this same step before other previous gubernatorial elections? We know that AB has never run before, so if the answer to (E) is "Yes," then AB has, in the past, completed this step without subsequently running for governor.
In other words, if the answer is "Yes," then AB has a history of completing this step without actually running for governor. So, taking that step would not be evidence that AB is actually going to run. Since the journalist's argument is based solely on that piece of evidence, this would hurt the argument.
If, however, this is the first time that AB has taken this step, then it is stronger evidence that AB will actually run.
Answering this question would be much more useful than answering the question listed in choice (C), so (E) is the best answer.
close
02 Dec 2021, 03:57
