We are told that when politicians resort to personal attacks, many editorialists criticize these attacks, but most voters do not pay a lot of attention to them. These attacks end after election day, and politicians can be excused for their attacks. However, political commentators are engaged in sustained and serious debate about ideas and policies, so--in the case of political commentators--these personal attacks on opponents serve not to beat those opponents, but to cut off the debate.
So, the argument is stating that while politicians who resort to personal attacks should be excused because most voters pay them very little attention, political commentators should not engage in personal attacks because they are engaged in sustained and serious debate about ideas and policies, therefore, the personal attacks that these commentators make serve not to beat those opponents--as it does with the politicians--but to cut off the debate.
Put concisely, political commentators should not resort to personal attacks on their opponents, i.e. Answer Choice (B).
Answer choice (C) is not the correct answer because it is not the point of the argument. The argument states the opposite, in fact: "politicians CAN BE EXCUSED for mudslinging." Therefore, if they can be excused, then editorialists are not right to criticize those politicians who resort to personal attacks on their opponents.
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
kharrisJune 13, 2018
Are they stating that editorialists should not resort to that for their opponents or in their debate about other politicians
ChristopherJune 15, 2018
@kharris, the argument is placing any person with whom a political commentator is having a debate in the role of the opponent. Whether that opponent is another political commentator or a politician is irrelevant. The conclusion is that political commentators should never resort to personal attacks. The subject of those attacks is irrelevant.
clgos11July 9, 2018
I put A, but guessing that's actually just a line vs. being important to the point?
KathSeptember 27, 2019
Can I understand "political commentators should be engaged in sustained debate" to be same meaning as "political commentator are always engaged in such debate"? And, it seems that the "should" in the correct answer choice is not from this sentence. Is that correct?
ValentinaJuly 11, 2020
In the final sentence of the passage, how are readers supposed to know that it's referring to the commentator's opponent and not the politician's opponent? I thought it was referring to the politician's opponent, which is why I chose answer A -- a politician can use a personal attack on their opponent to cut off the debate while "most voters pay them scant attention" and "such attacks end on election day," allowing them to be "excused for mudslinging."
VictoriaJuly 14, 2020
Hi @clgos11, @Kath, and @ValentinaCC,
Happy to help!
@Kath, these two statements do not mean the same thing. The first argues that political commentators should be engaged in this debate whereas the second is simply a statement of fact i.e. that political commentators are engaged in this debate.
The correct answer combines the last two sentences of the stimulus. We know that political commentators should be engaged in debate. We also know that, in this context, personal attacks on opponents simply serve to cut off the debate.
If commentators should be engaged in debate, they should not do anything that would cut off the debate. Therefore, commentators should not resort to personal attacks on their opponents.
@clgos11 and @ValentinaCC, answer choice (A) is incorrect because the passage never claims that personal attacks serve a useful purpose for politicians. The passage simply notes that politicians can be excused for such attacks. Even if we assume that the passage does claim this, this would not be the main point of the passage. The anecdote about politicians is intended to set the scene for the passage's real argument about political commentators, using contrasts to draw their conclusion.
We know that the final sentence is referring to political commentators' opponents based on two clues: (1) the first half of the passage is focused on politicians whereas the second half of the passage is focused on political commentators; and (2) the final sentence begins with "in such a context." What is the context? Commentators engaging in sustained and serious debate about ideas and policies.
Hope this is helpful! Please let us know if you have any further questions.
