Journalist: Every election year at this time the state

[alysekilleen]

Journalist: Every election year at this time the state government releases the financial disclosures that potential candidates must make in order to be eligible to run for office. Among those making the required financial disclosure this year is prominent local businessman, Arnold Bergeron. There has often been talk in the past of Mr. Bergeron's running for governor, not least from Mr. Bergeron himself. This year it is likely he finally will, since those who have discounted the possibility of a Bergeron candidacy have always pointed to the necessity of making financial disclosure as the main obstacle to such a candidacy.

In the journalist's argument the boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

a) The first provides information without which the argument lacks force; the second states the main conclusion of the argument.

b) The first provides information without which the argument lacks force; the second states an intermediate conclusion that is used to support a further conclusion.

c) The first sites a practice that the journalist seeks to defend; the second sites a likely consequence of this practice.

d) The first states evidence bearing against the main conclusion of the argument; the second is that main conclusion.

e) Each provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that supports a further conclusion stated in the argument.

Answer is A.

The wording of the first half of Answer choice a threw me off...

What does "lacks force" imply exactly?

[mschwrtz]

The short answer is that they don't seem to mean much by it, except that it is offered in support of the conclusion.

The longer answer is... hmmm... I used to teach logic, and I don't remember this as a term of art for describing arguments in that context.

Lacks force is a term of art in law though. I think that it means something like the conditions under which the theory/argument/law would apply have not been met. But I'm not a lawyer (and my best friend, daughter, and mother, lawyers all, aren't picking up their phones) so please correct me if you are.

I'm going to address the use of lacks force in ordinary speech, since I am an ordinary speaker.

In ordinary speech, to say that an argument lacks force is usually to say something like, Yeah, and so what? It is to say that even if the argument is otherwise reasonable, it doesn't matter because its premises or assumptions are false. Consider this argument,

My children have pledged to support me in my old age, so I don't need to worry about retirement savings.

If my children don't have any income, this argument lacks force.

Now this is awfully close to saying that the argument is either unsound or invalid.

It could also mean that even if the argument is sound its conclusion is of no real consequence, and I take this to be the paradigm meaning. Suppose that I have just been caught sawing off the head of the statue in front of city hall. You make this argument,

If your parents are wealthy enough they can keep you out of jail. A good lawyer or an artful bit of graft can solve just about any problem.

That argument--and it really is an argument, first conclusion and then evidence--lacks force unless my parents are wealthy enough to insulate me from the consequences of my harmless jape.

Now back to the question. I don't know exactly what they mean here. It doesn't seem to me that if the first bold claim were false we would then say So what? to the whole argument, so it doesn't seem to me that the argument would in fact lack force without it. On the other hand, the second bold part is clearly the conclusion, so we can eliminate A, C, and E. All you have to note to choose B over D is that the first bold part is offered in support of rather than against the conclusion.

[sudhansu9dm]

IMO, The main conclusion is Mr Arnold will have to make disclosure rather than he is running for the office of governor.

The OA fails the "Therefore" test, i.e.

Mr Arnold will have to make disclosure therefore he is running for the office of governor.
Or
Mr Arnold is running for the office of governor therefore he will have to make disclosure

In my opinion, the latter makes more sense, hence the final conclusion is Mr Arnold will have to make disclosure.

A should not be the correct answer.

[jnelson0612]

IMO, The main conclusion is Mr Arnold will have to make disclosure rather than he is running for the office of governor.

The OA fails the "Therefore" test, i.e.

Mr Arnold will have to make disclosure therefore he is running for the office of governor.
Or
Mr Arnold is running for the office of governor therefore he will have to make disclosure

In my opinion, the latter makes more sense, hence the final conclusion is Mr Arnold will have to make disclosure.

A should not be the correct answer.

I'm going to disagree with you. If you were a journalist writing a headline for this article, which would you choose:
"Local businessman will have to make a disclosure" OR
"Local businessman will finally run for governor"

Which one sums up the main idea of the article best? Which one do you think the author most wants to communicate?

Also, your conclusion that he will have to make the disclosure is contradicted by the stated fact in the argument that he has already made the disclosure. It doesn't make sense to write that he will have to do something that he has, in fact, already done.