Viewers surveyed immediately after the televised political debate last year between Lopez and Tanner tended to think ...

Naz on August 4, 2015

The conclusion of the argument is: those who reported that Lopez's arguments were better may have been biased in favor of Lopez.

Why? We know that viewers were surveyed immediately after the televised political debate last year between Lopez and Tanner. They tended to think that Lopez had made better arguments. Further, since Lopez eventually won the election, we make our conclusion: those who reported that Lopez made better arguments could have been biased in favor of him.

As you can see, the last sentence is used as the main premise for the conclusion. For some reason, the argument is using the fact that Lopez eventually won the election as proof that those who believed his arguments were better than Tanners to have been biased towards Lopez.

Clearly, this is a horrible argument and the premise has no connection the conclusion. However, that is how the last sentence is being utilized in this argument.

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

dfolave on August 11, 2015

Thanks. I work in politics and the argument is so terrible that I almost can't get to solve the questions of what weakens the argument when the argument itself is so terrible. Thanks again