AshutoshB wrote:
Hi experts please help me to fill the gap in my understanding
IM0 A is correct answers
As OA B states that ppl who support subsidy are not more likely to vote than who oppose
let's negate this: let say supporting grp is 60% more likely to vote than opposing grp and their proportion in population is only 10% ( as mentioned in the stem that ' polling indicates most ppl oppose subsidies') and opposing is 40% likely to vote
now, even though 90% supporting grp would casted their vote still it supports the conclusion
Thanks in advance
you are trying too hard to make your point... It seems as if you dont want the answer to be B.
nevertheless, ill try my best to explain you..
When governments subsidize certain industries, the business owners and employees of those industries benefit but the majority of consumers pay more for those products and find that there are fewer of their tax dollars available for policies they prefer. Unsurprisingly, polling indicates that most people see industry-specific subsidies as unfavorable. Consequently, political candidates would increase their likelihood of being elected if they oppose such subsidies.
understand :
fact : subsidy - benefit business owners and emps - hurt consumers ...why ?? because what consumers prefer dont get enough share of the revenue.
fact - polling results - industry specific subsidies unfavourable -
Conclusion - politician (WHO WANTS TO INCREASE HIS LIKELIHOOD OF BEING ELECTED - HE IS NOT YET ELECTED ...HE WANTS TO GET ELECTED ) should appose industry sppecific subsidy.
now why does author suggest the politician that?? certainly he must conclsude this by reckoning something from the polling stats ..
author assumes - 1) the polling data is representative of the entire population ..
2) note that this is just a poll and not actual election ..so there is still chance that the people who find X unfavourable they might still vote FOR SOMEONE ELSE... so author assumes that the ppl will not cahnge their poll view
The argument above assumes which of the following?
A. Most voters are well-informed about their elected representatives’ positions on subsidies.-
if you would have presneted your reasoning for A , it would have been easier to explain with respect to your reasoning...
read carefully , most voter are well informed about their ELECTED (already elected ... this is totally different case... they are already ELECTED...past tense..elections are done...)
lets negate A - ,most voter are not well informed about their elected represnetatives positions on subsidies !! so this might imply that ppl either knew about the positions of elected before elections or AFTER elections... so this does not break conclusion
even if we consider ppl knew before the elections , there is still possibilty that the past trend may not hold ...ppl in our case may or may not know the positions...
B. Those who support subsidies are not significantly more likely to vote than are those who oppose subsidies
- I'll use your analogy
if you take numbers in this case there willbe many cases
for eg : population of supporters is less
population of supporters is more
population of supporters is equal
what about the population who have no stand !!!
and many more..
the conclusion wants us to increase the LIKELYHOOD ... author never says HE WILL GET ELECTED.... so B is true