Q8 - Our political discussions tend to focus

[contropositive]

I narrowed my answers down to A and D. I picked A but i'm not sure why D is wrong and would like someone's feedback.

Necessary Assumption Type

Core:
Premise: current discussions are about the flaws of the leaders, but they were chosen democratically
Premise 2: we need to examine how these nation's institutions and procedures enables such people to gain power
Conclusion: the current attention on leader's flaws is pointless

Assumption: discussion of the leader's flaws don't tell us about how the institution's and procedures enable such people gain power

I found this quite strange because the author sort of answered the question he raises...he says the leaders were chosen democratically...wouldn't that already answer how institutions and procedures enable such people to gain power? in a democratic society people vote for these leaders

Is D wrong because "no one" is too strong and "examine the details" doesn't necessary mean they would examine how these leaders came to power?

[ohthatpatrick]

Remember two important things about Necessary Assumption:
1. Beware strong language in the answer choices (in order to pick something that's strongly worded, you need to justify where in the argument the author was thinking/saying something THAT strong)

2. The Negation Test is how you'll ultimately know whether an answer choice works.

Necessary Assumption = which of the following, if false, most weakens

You nailed the argument core. If we were trying to weaken this argument, we'd need some way of arguing that "focusing on leaders' flaws" is NOT "pointless".

negated (A)
Focusing on flaws DOES reveal stuff about how institutions affect selection of leaders.
(author previously called this latter idea "the real question that needs answering")

So we could say, "author, focusing on leaders' flaws isn't pointless -- it reveals stuff about the real question that needs answering!"

negated (D)
At least one person in the nation HAS made an effort to examine the details of nation's institutions/procedures.

Okay ... how does this make "focusing on leaders' flaws" seem like a worthwhile idea, not a pointless one.

It's not even connected. (D) is what some call a premise booster. Since the author said "the real question that needs answering is X", (D) wants us to think the author assumes that "no one has yet attempted to examine X".

We can't make that leap. I could say "The real disease that needs curing is cancer" while still believing that MANY, many people have made the effort to cure cancer.

In saying "the real question that needs answering is X", it's probably fair to say the author is assuming, "As yet, no one in the nation has sufficiently ANSWERED the question of how institutions/procedures influence selection of leaders."

But (D) is saying no one's even made an effort. That's harsh. That's strong language.

Additionally, (D) is talking about "examining the details" of the institutions/procedures. That's far different from "figuring out how" the institutions/procedures "enable flawed leaders to attain positions of power".

==== other answer choices =====
(B) The author doesn't need to predict the future, as this answer does. If we negate this and simply preserve the status quo (not answering the real question, focusing instead on flawed leaders), the argument still stands.

(C) Extreme language alert! "ensure" that "only"?

(E) "dissatisfaction with leaders" is out of scope

=====

The correct answer is (A).