Q8 - Analyst: When Johnson attacked his opponent

[Laura Damone]

Question Type:
Principle Support

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Those who run Johnson's campaign clearly don't believe that his opponent's quote is more politically damaging when taken in the correct context.
Evidence: They've had plenty of chances to refer to it in the correct context, and yet they continue to quote it out of context.

Answer Anticipation:
Principle Support questions tend to function like Sufficient Assumption questions: They almost always have a new concept in the conclusion that needs to be connected back to the premises. Here, that concept is "belief." Predict an answer choice connecting the concepts in the premises to that new concept.

Correct answer:
A

Answer choice analysis:
(A) And here it is! The premise of this argument is about the actions of the campaign: they keep quoting the opponent out of context. The conclusion is about how these actions reflect the beliefs of those who run the campaign. This answer connects those concepts, telling us they'll take the actions they believe to be most damaging to the opponent.

(B) What does this have to do with the beliefs of those running the campaign? Nothing. Eliminate.

(C) Again, nothing to do with the beliefs. Eliminate.

(D) Now, this one also lacks the concept of beliefs, so that's grounds for elimination. But, this one is more tempting than the others because it explains why Johnson isn't afraid to continue to quote his opponent out of context. However, explaining why he keeps doing it isn't enough. We need to explain why his continuing to do it proves something about the beliefs held by his campaign managers.

(E) No beliefs, so we eliminate.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Just like Sufficient Assumption questions, Principle Support questions are driven by the need to connect the premise to the new concept that the conclusion brought up but about which no evidence was given. Keep your focus here, and look for a Bridge Assumption that connects the concepts.

#officialexplanation