lMarial wrote:
Tanner: The public should demand political debates before any election. Voters are better able to choose the candidate best suited for office if they watch the candidates seriously debate one another.
Saldana: Political debates almost always benefit the candidate who has the better debating skills. Thus, they don't really help voters determine which candidate is most qualified for office.
The dialogue provides the most support for the claim that Tanner and Saldana disagree over which one of the following?
(A) Political candidates with strong debating skills are more likely to win elections than those with weak debating skills.
This is never the case debating skills is putting forth the matter better therefor eout
(B) A voter who watches a political debate will likely be better able, as a result, to determine which candidate is more qualified for office.
THis is exactly what they necessarily disgree upon therefore out
(C) Debating skills are of little use to politicians in doing their jobs once they are elected to office.
This is out of context and doesn't have the slightest implication therefore out
(D) The candidates with the best debating skills are the ones who are most qualified for the political offices for which they are running.
This may not be the ideal case always , however there is a possibility also that best debating candidate is also the better of the two which they might agree upon therefore out
(E) Political debates tend to have a major effect on which candidate among those participating in a debate will win the election.
This may or may not be the case therefore out
THerefore IMO B