Pundit: Clearly, the two major political parties in this city have become sharply divided on the issues. In the last ...

shunhe on July 10, 2020

Hi @Veda-Bhadharla,

Thanks for the question! So let’s take a look at what’s going on in this argument. We’re being told that there are two major political parties in this city that are sharply divided. This is the conclusion. What’s the premise, why do we believe this? Well, because in the last four elections, the parties were separated by less than 1% of the vote.

So as we can see here, the argument concludes based on the fact that the votes are close that the parties are sharply divided. But does that have to be true? No, not at all. In fact, if the parties were super similar, maybe people don’t really care which party they vote for, which would explain why they split the vote pretty evenly. And that’s the flaw that (E) points out, the argument takes for granted that an almost even division in votes indicates a sharp division on issues.

(A) is wrong because there’s no causal argument being made.

(B) is wrong because there’s no argument that the sharp division is bad.

(C) is wrong because the argument isn’t restating a premise (which would be a circular argument). The premise is definitely distinct from the conclusion, as mentioned above.

(D) brings in other cities, which isn’t really relevant to this city, which is what the pundit’s concerned about. So (D)’s wrong as well.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.

Veda-Bhadharla on July 19, 2020

I understand, thank you!!