D is incorrect because the passage does not discuss the purpose of serious debate about ideas and policies.
We simply know that political commentators should be engaged in serious debate and that personal attacks on opponents serve to cut off the debate.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any further questions.
nikkidianeabelMarch 5, 2020
So the answer would be A if I am thinking correctly? I feel it's the only explanation of what serves a purpose here in this passage? I have eliminated all others and it's the only one to be true through and through. But it doesn't state fully that it is gain/helpful I can assume cutting off debate would mean being useful for politicians
VictoriaAugust 8, 2020
Hi @nikkidianeabel,
The main point of the argument is its conclusion.
In this passage, the discussion about politicians is included to introduce the author's main point about political commentators i.e. many politicians resort to personal attacks which are excusable, but political commentators cannot.
So, what is the author's conclusion?
Unlike politicians, political commentators should not resort to personal attacks.
Why? Because commentators should be engaged in sustained and serious debate about ideas and policies and, in this context, personal attacks only serve to cut off said debate, not beat their opponents.
We can see that this conclusion is restated by answer choice (B), making it the correct answer.
Answer choice (A) is incorrect for two reasons:
(1) The passage does not discuss the usefulness of personal attacks for politicians. We know that they can be excused for these attacks, but that does not necessarily mean that they are useful.
(2) The passage does not draw any connections between political commentators and politicians. The author simply discusses politicians for the purpose of comparison. Therefore, we cannot assume that cutting off the debate is useful for politicians because we do not know how political commentators' and politicians' roles interact, if at all.
Hope this is helpful!
Karen-NorrisOctober 19, 2021
I chose A and the reason I didn't choose B is because political commentators technically don't have political opponents. The only person who would have a political opponent is a candidate, not a commentator. : (
Karen-NorrisOctober 19, 2021
The other reason I chose A, is because the passage did state politicians sometimes used personal attacks to derail their opponent and avoid discussion of substantive issues (paraphrased.)
Karen-NorrisOctober 19, 2021
The last sentence: "In such a context, personal attacks on opponents serve not to beat those opponents but to cut off the debate." In my opinion, is not clearly linked to commentators. Although the previous sentence was talking about commentators, it seems this statement stands on its own and could simply be an awkwardly placed sentence. Plus there's the whole issue of political commentators technically not having opponents. (Of course I still lost the point, but here is my thought process.)
juliekattNovember 3, 2021
Karen-Norris, those were my thoughts as well. Who is the opponent of a political commentator? Who are they debating? It's the politicians debating. Who are they mudslinging and personally attacking? Nowhere in the argument did it state that political commentators debate or personally attack. (Unless that's what was meant with the pronoun in the last sentence, but the previous statement leads me to believe it's referencing the politicians.)
RaviFebruary 8, 2022
@julieklatt, they're debating other political commentators. It's implied in the nature of their work. Think of political pundits on television/the news. This is how we arrive at B, as the whole argument is aimed at concluding what B says.
With A, the author believes that we can excuse politicians for mudslinging, but the argument doesn't give us a reason to believe that the attacks are useful, so we can toss this choice.
