Political analyst: A party that temporarily

[Guest]

Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself in the negligible crack between the American right and left will do little to expand the public debate. What America needs is a permanent third party. Some claim that America’s success stems from the two party system. These people say that a third party would make the passage of legislation and thus governance impossible. Furthermore, they point to the current sluggish pace of government as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party. Yet, most European countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern there.

Which of the following best describes the functions of the two sections in boldface in the argument above?

WRONG: The first supports the main position held by opponents of the main point; the second is a premise that argues against that position.

RIGHT: The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first.

These two answers looks/sounds exactly the same to me. How do I differentiate the two? What am I missing?

[Nagm]

Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself in the negligible crack between the American right and left will do little to expand the public debate. What America needs is a permanent third party. Some claim that America’s success stems from the two party system. These people say that a third party would make the passage of legislation and thus governance impossible. Furthermore, they point to the current sluggish pace of government as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party. Yet, most European countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern there.

Which of the following best describes the functions of the two sections in boldface in the argument above?

WRONG: The first supports the main position held by opponents of the main point; the second is a premise that argues against that position.

RIGHT: The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first.

These two answers looks/sounds exactly the same to me. How do I differentiate the two? What am I missing?

You need to idetify the main conlusion of the argument first. This argument has two conclusions- main conclusion and intermediate conclusion. firts bold is primary claim or intermediate conclusion made by opponents

[rfernandez]

Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself in the negligible crack between the American right and left will do little to expand the public debate. What America needs is a permanent third party. Some claim that America’s success stems from the two party system. These people say that a third party would make the passage of legislation and thus governance impossible. Furthermore, they point to the current sluggish pace of government as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party. Yet, most European countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern there.

Which of the following best describes the functions of the two sections in boldface in the argument above?

WRONG: The first supports the main position held by opponents of the main point; the second is a premise that argues against that position.

RIGHT: The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first.

These two answers looks/sounds exactly the same to me. How do I differentiate the two? What am I missing?

I'll run this by some folks here, because I agree that the two as written are identical in meaning. We'll keep you posted.

Rey

[rfernandez]

Upon further review, there's a subtle difference between the first parts of each answer choice.

To start, the first boldface statement is the opponents' main claim itself, not a statement that provides evidence for the main claim.

"WRONG: The first supports the main position held by opponents of the main point;" -- this option incorrectly states that the first boldface statement supports the opponents' main claim. In truth, the first boldface statement is the main claim of the opponents.

"RIGHT: The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument;" -- this is correct, as it identifies the first boldface statement to be the primary claim of the opponents.

Sorry I missed that distinction on my first pass -- I found myself focusing on the second half of the answer choices initially!

Rey

[NIKESH_PAHUJA]

Tutors ,

i am having difficulty understanding this construction.

Can you please explain in detail which part is serving what purpose ? ( as in which all, serve as premise, counter-premise, sub conclusion, main conclusion ? )

[esledge]

There are two points of view, the political analyst's (P.A.) and those s/he refers to as "some" or "these people" (others). Here's a summary of the argument, with the role of each piece categorized.

P.A.--CLAIM PREMISE, supporting his/her conclusion: A party that temporarily positions itself in the negligible crack between the American right and left will do little to expand the public debate.

P.A.--CONCLUSION: What America needs is a permanent third party.

Others--CONCLUSION: America’s success stems from the two party system.

Others--PREMISE (supports their CONCLUSION): a third party would make the passage of legislation and thus governance impossible.

Others--PREMISE (supports their CONCLUSION): they point to the current sluggish pace of government as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party.

P.A.--rebuttal to Others, COUNTER-PREMISE to their CONCLUSION: Yet, most European countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern there.

[NIKESH_PAHUJA]

Thanks esledge for the detailed explanation!!

One more thing, Do these kind of arguments, which involved conclusion from two parties, have a main conclusion.

I mean can we call Conclusion of political analyst main conclusion.

Lets say the question asks to weaken the conclusion? Should we weaken the conclusion of political analyst or the others?

OR , In these kind of arguments, question will always explicitly state which conclusion to weaken ?

There are two points of view, the political analyst's (P.A.) and those s/he refers to as "some" or "these people" (others). Here's a summary of the argument, with the role of each piece categorized.

P.A.--CLAIM PREMISE, supporting his/her conclusion: A party that temporarily positions itself in the negligible crack between the American right and left will do little to expand the public debate.

P.A.--CONCLUSION: What America needs is a permanent third party.

Others--CONCLUSION: America’s success stems from the two party system.

Others--PREMISE (supports their CONCLUSION): a third party would make the passage of legislation and thus governance impossible.

Others--PREMISE (supports their CONCLUSION): they point to the current sluggish pace of government as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party.

P.A.--rebuttal to Others, COUNTER-PREMISE to their CONCLUSION: Yet, most European countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern there.

[RonPurewal]

Thanks esledge for the detailed explanation!!

One more thing, Do these kind of arguments, which involved conclusion from two parties, have a main conclusion.

I mean can we call Conclusion of political analyst main conclusion.

Lets say the question asks to weaken the conclusion? Should we weaken the conclusion of political analyst or the others?

OR , In these kind of arguments, question will always explicitly state which conclusion to weaken ?

definitely the latter.

if you have two people who are basically shouting back and forth, especially when their respective conclusions are opposed to each other, then it makes no sense to talk about a "main" conclusion.

so you won't have to worry about deciding whose conclusion is more important; this is a non-issue.