People's political behavior frequently does not match their rhetoric. Although many complain about government interv...

Casey June 9, 2015

I need further explanation

I thought the conclusion was people's political rhetoric doesn't match their actions which is supported by the claim that people often reelect politicians whose behavior they resent. I can see how the statement that people don't reelect inactive voters despite their claim that they don't like political intervention in their lives is a premise for the subsidiary conclusion, but I thought the statement directly shows how people's behavior doesn't match their rhetoric was more compelling. Could you explain why that is wrong?

Replies

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Naz June 9, 2015

I definitely see how this can be confusing, but remember that the last sentence is introduced by a "main point" indicator: "Thus."

The first sentence is actually the subsidiary conclusion of the argument. Clearly the second sentence supports the first sentence in showing that even though people complain about the government intervening, i.e. people's rhetoric shows that they do not like government intervention, they tend not to reelect inactive politicians, i.e. their political behavior (not reelecting these politicians) does not match their rhetoric.

You are mistaken in reasoning that the last sentence supports the first sentence. The last sentence states: "voters often reelect politicians whose behavior they resent." This has nothing to do with the rhetoric of the voters. How can we say that a sentence about who voters often reelect based on BEHAVIORS they resent supports a sentence stating that people's political behaviors does not match their own RHETORIC. It doesn't seem like a very strong argument if we used the last sentence as evidence for the first. Perhaps if the first sentence had said: "People's political behavior frequently goes at odds with people they like," but it doesn't. The first sentence is specifically about the rhetoric of the voters being at odds with the action of the voters.

So, the last sentence does not support the first sentence. On the other hand, it can be said that the first sentence supports the last one. If people's political behavior does not match their rhetoric, then it could help us come to the conclusion that voters will reelect politicians whose behavior they resent, because they may have resented these politicians' behavior in their rhetoric, i.e. "many complain about government intervention." As you can see, the first sentence supports the last sentence. Thus, the first sentence cannot be the conclusion because we know that the conclusion does not support any other sentence in the argument.

Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Brett-Lindsay July 1, 2020

My reading of the argument was exactly the same as Naz's.

I think some of the confusion stems from the answer explanation, in which it states:

"The first step in noticing this is figuring out the role of the first sentence. The last sentence is clearly a conclusion ("Thus"), but the first sentence is a statement that has support throughout the rest of the stimulus. Looking just at those two statements, we can see that voters reelecting politicians they resent supports their behavior not matching their rhetoric, and so the first sentence is the main conclusion."

After I read that, I was perplexed. Upon reading Naz's explanation, I felt vindicated.