thanhmaitran wrote:
Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicians often must disguise their true feelings when they make public statements. If they expressed their honest views - about, say, their party's policies - then achieving politically necessary compromises would be much more difficult. Clearly, the very insincerity that people decry shows that our government is functioning well.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines this reasoning?
A. Achieving political compromises is not all that is necessary for the proper functioning of a government.
B. Some political compromises are not in the best long-term interest of the government.
C. Voters often judge politicians by criteria other than the sincerity with which they express their views.
D. A political party's policies could turn out to be detrimental to the functioning of a government.
E. Some of the public statements made by politicians about their party's policies could in fact be sincere.
After going through all the posts on this thread, I can see that while many of us have gotten the answer right, hardly anyone of us has gotten it right for the right reasons.
The crux of the argument is this: Since achieving politically necessary compromises would be much more difficult with honest views than with insincerity, the insincerity of the politicians shows that our govt is functioning well.
The reason given on this thread for accepting option A is that the option shows that achieving political compromises does not help in the proper functioning of a government. Or it delinks political compromises from the functioning of the government.
Neither of these reasons is correct.
If I tell you that achieving 760 on GMAT is not all that is necessary for getting admission in Harvard (which, as you know is true since there are many other requirements), does it mean that 760 on GMAT doesn't help in getting admission in Harvard? Or does it mean that 760 on GMAT is not linked to admission to Harvard?
The answer to both the questions is No. Right?
Just that one thing is not the "only" necessary requirement doesn't mean that it is not even one of the requirements. Right?
Similarly, option A doesn't mean achieving political compromises is not good for the functioning of a government.
Rather, if I change the conclusion to "the very insincerity that people decry is good for the functioning of the government", option A will become incorrect, for the abovementioned reasons.
The reason option A is correct is that the conclusion says that the insincerity "shows" that the government is functioning well.
It's like saying "your 760 on GMAT shows that you have gotten into Harvard".
Now, if someone tells me that 760 on GMAT is not the only requirement for Harvard, my above statement will be weakened.
Right?
Similarly, since option A says that achieving political compromises is not the only requirement for the proper functioning of the government, it means that even if we achieve political compromises, other requirements may not be met, and thus, the government may still not be functioning well. Therefore, just by knowing that we have probably achieved political compromises, we cannot say that the government is functioning well.
Does it make sense?
Option B is wrong because it says "some" political compromises are not in the best long-term interest of the government. One major reason for rejecting option B is that "some" means "at least one". So, essentially option B says that at least one political compromise is not in the.... Do we really need all political compromises to be in the "best long-term interests" of the government?
No. Right?
Secondly, it talks about "political compromises" in general, not specifically "necessary political compromises", as talked about in the argument. It could be that some political compromises are not good, but probably none of them is necessary. Probably, all necessary compromises are actually good for the government. Right?
Therefore, option B doesn't weaken the argument.
Option D says "A political party's policies could turn out to be detrimental to the functioning of a government". This option uses "could", which means, as in option B, that some policies could be detrimental to the functioning of a government. Now, even if some of the policies are detrimental to the functioning of the government, does it mean that politicians should express honestly?
No. Because the reasoning of the argument stands as is. If they express honestly, achieving politically "necessary" compromises would be much more difficult.
Therefore, even if option D is true, the reasoning of the argument stands as is.
Thus, option D doesn't weaken the argument and is incorrect.