Q1 - The mayoral race in Bensburg is a choice

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Weakens

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Chu will probably beat Lewis.
Evidence: The last six winners were pro-development candidates. Chu is pro-development, while Lewis is more anti-development.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument is making the classic "what was true in the past will be true again" assumption. For us to argue that THIS election will NOT fit the same pattern, we need some sort of meaningful difference between those previous six elections and this one. It could be a difference about the candidates, (previous prodevelopment candidates were charismatic, while Chu is deeply unlikable) or it could be a difference about the town / the voters / the election rules / etc.

Correct Answer:
C

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This answer is a wishy-washy mix of pos and neg. And it's hard to Weaken a comparative conclusion, if you only talk about ONE of the two things being compared. We don't know L's experience would compare to C's, so who knows if this is an advantage or disadvantage?

(B) Strengthens. Adds more plausibility to the notion that the prodevelopment candidate will win.

(C) YES! The key word is "new". This changes the game, from the context of the previous six elections. If most voters think development has gone too far and is creating serious problems, then we are less likely to think the pro-development candidate will win.

(D) In order for this to weaken, we'd have to assume that "because L worked as an aide for a prodevelopment mayor, he is actually quite prodevelopment". That's not a fair assumption to make, and it would also go against the premise fact we already have that L currently is running on a platform to limit development.

(E) So what if he wasn't considered prodevlopment before? He is now. We can't spin some story that "because he's only RECENTLY prodevelopment, he won't get that prodevelopment voting bump they're selling us on".

Takeaway/Pattern: Because it was true in the past [because a pro-d candidate won the last six], it will be true again in this instance [the pro-d candidate will win this one]. You strengthen a Comparison argument by providing more similarity; you weaken a Comparison argument by pointing to a meaningful difference.

#officialexplanation