Some of the politicians who strongly supported free trade among Canada, the United States, and Mexico are now refusin...

SamA on May 9, 2020

Hello @kassidee,

If you are unfamiliar with quantifier rules and reasoning, then I think this is a pretty difficult question. However, if you have watched the quantifier lesson, you should be able to see through the tricks presented by the wrong answer choices.

Keep in mind that we are given a very small amount of information by the stimulus. The key is to stick to this information, and do not make conclusions beyond what we can support.

Of the politicians who strongly supported free trade in Canada, USA, & Mexico, some now refuse to support free trade in Latin America.

Remember that "some" statements are reversible, and that happens to be the only other conclusion that we can make here. We can also say:

Of the countries who now refuse to support free trade in Latin America, some of them previously supported free trade in Canada, USA, & Mexico.

A. Do we have any information about politicians who do support free trade in Latin America? No. Stick to what we know for certain.

B. I have the same complaint as I did for A. We don't know anything about politicians who currently support free trade in Latin America.

C. This one is close. However, is it possible that the politicians in question have always believed that Latin America should be excluded? They may have said, "We support free trade in Canada, USA, and Mexico, but not for the rest of Latin America." There is no guarantee that opinions were changed.

D. The stimulus gives us a specific group of politicians. They supported free trade when it came to the big three countries, but now they will not support Latin America. Can we conclude that "not all" of these politicians support free trade in Latin America? Absolutely! We have a specific example of some that don't. This is the correct answer.

E. Refusing to support is not the same as publicly opposing. E is too strong.