62 LR Two Question 14
- « 62 LR Two Question 13
- 2046 of 3815
- 62 LR Two Question 15 »
- You must Log in or Sign Up to post comments
For this question I focused on conclusion that (... would probably benefit park visitors as well.) I felt that answer choice A attacked that conclusion by stating that (we should not privatize even if doing so would benefit visitors). Im assuming A is wrong because it talks about it not being "politically expedient" which has nothing to do with the conclusion but I still dont see why E is right in the end. Why is the competition between companies the main focus I should be looking at instead of the conclusion about the visitor benefits.
You're right about (A)—whether or not it's politically expedient doesn't tell us whether it will benefit park visitors.
However, if (E) is true, then the analogy drawn by the politician breaks down, and we have no reason to believe that privatization would benefit park visitors. (E) powerfully attacks the conclusion, by sweeping the legs out from under the analogy she used for evidence.
You can answer this kind of question much more quickly by noting the typical analogy error (more on that here). Remember too that we anticipated this method of weakening—an attack on the assumption—in our intro to Weaken questions.
(D) strengthens the argument! The conclusion is that it will benefit consumers. (D) says that it will benefit consumers.
The fact that it only benefits a small number of consumers doesn't change anything; the argument didn't claim that it would benefit any particular number of consumers!