Susan: The President
claims to understand the problems faced by the poor.
I don’t think he can make such a claim. The President came from a
wealthy family and has never had to work for a living or suffer the problems of poverty.
Paul: Your reasoning is flawed. After all,
you yourself come from a comfortably middle-class family and have never been poor either.
Susan's point is if you are not from a poor family you cannot uderstand poor.
Paul instead makes a mistake of directly comparing Susan with President. There arre 2 ways to defending for Susan
1> Susan is from poor family.
2> Susan is not president.
But if he prooves that he is poor, does it really make him to the point. I mean , even if he is very poor but is his argument about
him being a president. Options with this reasoning is very tentative but I think its not what Susan is arguing for. Note the opening statement "President claims ...."
Which of the following possible responses by Susan would most directly address Paul’s criticism?
A. I am not the President, so understanding and solving the problems faced by the poor is not my responsibility.
It can be an option, but hold itB. I may have been middle-class, but I was raised in a post-industrial city with a large proportion of poor people, and I saw how they suffered.
OUT
C. I never claimed to understand the problems faced by the poor, but the President has made such a claim.
Same as A. But here he directly refers to the premise on which his argument depends. It is more direct. This is
the answer. If C would not have been present I would have gone for A
D. It is true that I have never been poor, but I have never been as wealthy as the President is, either.
OUT
E. My family was a poor immigrant family as few as fifty years ago. All they have, they earned through their own hard work.