Tariffs on particular products tend to protect the small percentage of the population that works in industries that m...

Ravi on May 3, 2019

@JeremyG,

Happy to help. This is a strengthen with a necessary premise question,
so we're looking for the answer choice that, if false, makes the
argument fall apart. We can use the negation test to see if an answer
choice that's negated wrecks the argument. If it does, then it's the
correct answer.

(A) says, "Supporters of tariffs on particular products are not
significantly more likely than opponents to base their vote for a
politician on the politician's stand on this issue."

(A)'s negation is "Supporters of tariffs on particular products are
significantly more likely than opponents to base their vote for a
politician on the politician's stand on this issue."

If supporters of tariffs are far more likely than opponents to base
their vote on a politician's stance on tariffs (that is, a single
issue), then this argument falls apart because it doesn't matter that
most people oppose tariffs because they might not even be voting based
on the politician's stance on tariffs. Thus, (A) has to be true in
order for this argument to have a chance, so it's the correct answer
choice.

(E) says, "People who would be hurt by tariffs generally know that
they would be hurt by them."

(E)'s negation is "People who would be hurt by tariffs do not
generally know that they would be hurt by them."

The thing is, we already know from our premises that most people do
oppose tariffs. We do not need to know their reasons for opposing
tariffs. Even if people do not know they would be hurt by tariffs, we
already know that most people still oppose them. (E)'s negation
doesn't wreck the argument, so this answer choice isn't a necessary
premise. We can get rid of it.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!

JeremyG on May 5, 2019

Yes that clears it up, thank you!

Ravi on May 5, 2019

@JeremyG, great! Let us know if you have any other questions!