Q10 - Council chair: The traditional code of parliamentary

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
The old code makes us quibble and we appear unworthy of public confidence .
+
Success depends on having public confidence .
+
The new code has worked elswhere for a while.

Therefore, we should adopt the alternate code.

Answer Anticipation:
Any reason that the old code is fine or the new code is bad will weaken this argument. I'm going to head into the answers fairly open as to what it could say, but I would have this framework as my baseline.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Doesn't do much of anything. Okay...but should we adopt the alternate code, still? 

(B) Misconstrues what we're talking about, which is whether we should definitely adopt the new code because the old one is bad. If people sometimes use the new code to try to confuse their opponents, that doesn't tell us much. We still don't know how often they do that, or if they're successful, or what it all means. Maybe the old code is still worse.

(C) This answer states that the traditional code is being revised so the problems will be gone. This would totally undermine the argument! We wouldn't need the alternate code if we're fixing the current set.

(D) Tempting! But to say it's "not always reasonable" leaves definite room for this to be the time when it IS reasonable. Under the terms of (D), we don't even know if (D) APPLIES here. It could be completely irrelevant. (C), however, does apply.

(E) If anything, this argues that the alternate code is good, which would strengthen the argument.

Takeaway/Pattern:
If a conclusion picks one option over the other, weaken it with a pro of the selected option or a con of the unselected one.

#officialexplanation

[NathanW987]

hello,

i originally chose E for this question. now that i am reviewing it, answer choice C seems obvious. however, i am still not clear why E is wrong. to me, it seems that if the alternate code contains the same problems (obscure and necessary rules) as the traditional code, then the alternate code is not a viable option, either. why would the council chair switch from the traditional code to the alternate code if the alternate code isn't any better than the traditional code?

thanks for the clarification.

[ohthatpatrick]

(E) is wrong because it strengthens the argument (mildly).

I think you're reading it as saying
"The alternate code contains A FEW provisions that are obscure/unnecessary"

Instead, it says
"it contains FEW provisions that are obscure/unnecessary".

FEW = less than 50% .... little to nothing.

For example,
it's TRUE to say "few US Presidents have been female"
while it's FALSE to say "a few US Presidents have been female"
.

If the traditional code contains a LARGE NUMBER of obscure / unnecessary rules,
and the alternate code contains FEW obscure / unnecessary rules,
that strengthens the author's notion that we should switch to the alternate code.

[AmeliaS917]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
The old code makes us quibble and we appear unworthy of public confidence .
+
Success depends on having public confidence .
+
The new code has worked elswhere for a while.

Therefore, we should adopt the alternate code.

Answer Anticipation:
Any reason that the old code is fine or the new code is bad will weaken this argument. I'm going to head into the answers fairly open as to what it could say, but I would have this framework as my baseline.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Doesn't do much of anything. Okay...but should we adopt the alternate code, still? 

(B) Misconstrues what we're talking about, which is whether we should definitely adopt the new code because the old one is bad. If people sometimes use the new code to try to confuse their opponents, that doesn't tell us much. We still don't know how often they do that, or if they're successful, or what it all means. Maybe the old code is still worse.

(C) This answer states that the traditional code is being revised so the problems will be gone. This would totally undermine the argument! We wouldn't need the alternate code if we're fixing the current set.

(D) Tempting! But to say it's "not always reasonable" leaves definite room for this to be the time when it IS reasonable. Under the terms of (D), we don't even know if (D) APPLIES here. It could be completely irrelevant. (C), however, does apply.

(E) If anything, this argues that the alternate code is good, which would strengthen the argument.

Takeaway/Pattern:
If a conclusion picks one option over the other, weaken it with a pro of the selected option or a con of the unselected one.

#officialexplanation

In the takeaway "If a conclusion picks one option over the other, weaken it with a pro of the selected option or a con of the unselected one." -- I don't understand this. Shouldn't it be weaken it with a pro of the unselected option or a con of the selected one?