Q15 - Candidate: In each election

[smiller]

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Premise:
In previous years, the candidate who supported property tax reform received a significant majority of votes in one part of a district.

Conclusion:
Supporting tax reform is all that is necessary to attract voters in that part of the district.

Answer Anticipation:
The premise is describing a correlation between supporting property tax reform and receiving a majority of votes. While the word "cause" doesn't explicitly appear in the conclusion, the phrase "all I need to do" implies that favoring tax reform would be the cause of receiving additional votes. We'll look for an answer that describes a "correlation vs. causation" flaw.

Correct answer:
D

Answer choice analysis:
(A) The argument doesn't make any claims about what the candidate will or will not do once elected. There is no evidence that the candidate won't follow through with their campaign promises.

(B) The candidate does describe a difference between voting patterns in different parts of the district, but these differences don't actually lead to "opposite conclusions," nor do they create a flaw in the argument.

(C) We're told that the sample is based on ten years' worth of election results in the district. We don't have any reason to believe that sample is too small to support the conclusion.

(D) This answer describes a "correlation vs. causation" flaw, which is what we anticipated.

(E) The data cited in the argument is from "the last ten years," not "ten years ago."

Takeaway/Pattern:
A correlation between two events does not prove that one causes the other. This flaw appears frequently in LR questions. Keep an eye open for it.

#officialexplanation