CR 1000 Series

[Guest79]

The number of cases in which prison inmates manipulate the welfare system to provide themselves with benefits is very small. But the widespread public outrage over such cases makes them tempting examples to use in arguments for severly limiting welfare programs. This is because these rare but extreme cases of welfare fraud help to harden public attitudes towards welfare more effectively than standard cases, in which needy, law-abiding individuals receive benefits

The claims above can best serve as part of an argument against the view that

(A) those who wish to change public attitudes towards welfare spending should focus public attention only on standard cases of welfare assistance
(B) a type of welfare fraud can both be common and lead to widespread public outrage.
(C) the frequency with which a type of welfare fraud occurs is a good indicator of its effect on public opinion.
(D) the public is only interested in standard cases of welfare fraud.
(E) cases of welfare fraud occur less often than cases in which welfare benefits are not farudlently received.


Instructors - please help to understand what has been asked here and the appropriate answer too.

Thanks

[dbernst]

Guest79, I'm not sure where this question originated, but its responses are poorly written and the structure is very uncommon. In essence, the question is asking Which of the following views is most weakened by the text?

Answer choices B and E can quickly be eliminated as neither is directly addressed in the text. Answer choice A seems a bit too extreme, as the argument does not indicate that public attitudes are only affected by extreme cases of welfare assistance.

The difficulty is choosing between C and D, as reasonable arguments can be made for each. Choice C seems okay, since
the text contradicts this view by offering an example of an infrequently occurring type of welfare fraud that has a widespread effect on public opinion. However, choice D seems even more okay (can something be "more okay"?) since the text clearly shows that the public is NOT only interested in standard cases of welfare fraud.

Because C offers a general principle which the text contradicts with only one example, while the entire point of D is completely undermined by the text, I would argue that choice D is weakened most by the text and is thus the best answer.

-dan

The number of cases in which prison inmates manipulate the welfare system to provide themselves with benefits is very small. But the widespread public outrage over such cases makes them tempting examples to use in arguments for severly limiting welfare programs. This is because these rare but extreme cases of welfare fraud help to harden public attitudes towards welfare more effectively than standard cases, in which needy, law-abiding individuals receive benefits

The claims above can best serve as part of an argument against the view that

(A) those who wish to change public attitudes towards welfare spending should focus public attention only on standard cases of welfare assistance
(B) a type of welfare fraud can both be common and lead to widespread public outrage.
(C) the frequency with which a type of welfare fraud occurs is a good indicator of its effect on public opinion.
(D) the public is only interested in standard cases of welfare fraud.
(E) cases of welfare fraud occur less often than cases in which welfare benefits are not farudlently received.


Instructors - please help to understand what has been asked here and the appropriate answer too.

Thanks