2318

[ptraye]

James never votes against the incumbent, and he never votes for the same candidate in two consecutive mayoral elections.

We can infer that...

A) If a mayor serves four consecutive terms, James voted for him at least twice during that span.

B) If a mayor serves four consecutive terms, James voted for him no more than twice during that span.

------------------------------------------------------

I chose A. Can anyone explain why B is correct?

[tommywallach]

Hey Ptraye,

Well, the first time the mayor runs, James can't vote for him (because that would be voting against the incumbent). James could vote for him the second time. However, he couldn't vote for him the third time, because he never votes for the same candidate in two consecutive mayoral elections (this means James isn't voting AT ALL the third time, because he also can't vote against the incumbent). However, James can vote for the mayor in the final election.

A is wrong because James could vote just the second time and never again. (Or just the third time. Or just the fourth time.) You could also argue the passage never says James has to vote at all!

-t

[ptraye]

Tommy,

I thought like this:

1st election -- can vote for the mayor, because he is a candidate and just won office (not an incumbent yet).

2nd election -- cannot for for the mayor, because now is the incumbent.

3rd election -- can vote for the mayor.

4th election -- cannot vote for the mayor because is the incumbent.

Even along this reasoning, answer choice B is the safer choice, but A can be correct.

Do you notice a problem with the reasoning?

And, I'm not sure if you're correct when you say James can't vote for the mayor in the first election because that would be voting against he incumbent. I'm not sure if the electorate is open and there is no incumbent. Maybe, the previous mayor has term-limited. That's part of the reason I thought this question does not provide enough information.

What do you think? And, the passage does not mention that James has to vote at all; that's why B is the safer choice.

Thanks.

[tommywallach]

Hey Ptraye,

I think you're misunderstanding your own GREAT example! : )

In your example, he voted for the mayor twice (and I agree with your read that he could conceivably vote for him the first time). But you're misreading (A). It says James HAD to vote for him AT LEAST twice. But the passage never said James has to vote at all! So he definitely doesn't have to vote at least twice.

-t