last-11-1-13

13.   Editorial: In rejecting the plan proposed by parliament to reform the electoral process, the president clearly acted in the best interests of the nation. Anyone who thinks otherwise should remember that the president made this decision knowing it would be met with fierce opposition at home and widespread disapproval abroad. All citizens who place the nation’s well-being above narrow partisan interests will applaud this courageous action.

The reasoning in the editorial is in error because

(A) it confused a quality that is merely desirable in a political leader with a quality that is essential to effective political decision-making

(B) it fails to distinguish between evidence concerning the courage required to make a certain decision and evidence concerning the wisdom of making that decision

(C) it ignores the likelihood that many citizens have no narrow partisan interest in the proposed election reform plan

(D) it overlooks the possibility that there was strong opposition to the parliament’s plan among members of the president’s own party（B）

(E) it depends on the unwarranted assumption that any plan proposed by a parliament will necessarily serve only narrow partisan interests

我的推理：总统否决议会议案——》总统以国家利益为重的人（结论）

总统会遇到国内。外的反对―――》总统有勇气

所有以以国家利益为重的人－――》都有勇气

B说错误在于分不清勇气和智慧？

the stimulus: the president took great courage to reject the plan, so it shows that the president acted in the interests of the nation.

error:  the courage of facing opposition, and the ability to serve the interests of the nation. they are two different things.

forgive my stubborn, I really can't tell where you can infer from the passage "the ability to serve the interests of the nation"?

what's wrong with D? I think the error is that it overlooks the possibility that president does oppose the parliment's plan on behalf of his partisan's interests. there is no evidence to show president acted in the interests of the nation.

there might have some other reasons to explain president's courage to reject the plan,such as on behalf of his partisan's interests.

I take "the president clearly acted in the best interests of the nation." as an indication of the president's ability to serve. this may sound farfethced in itself. However, if you put it in the context of the whole argument, it may be proper.

The argument has such a rough reasoning line: In rejecting the plan, the president serves the intersts of the nation. Why do I say so? see, he knew he would meet strong opposition in rejecting the plan, but he still did so. It indicates that he put the nation's wellbeing above the partisan interest and he is courageous.

There is no direct evidence here proving that the president did act in the interest of the nation. Instead, the argument takes as the evidence the fact that the president insisted doing so in spite of strong opposition.(courage)

Of course, i make such analysis with an awareness of the correct answer. I came to this answer also because i did believe the other choices were simply not correct.

What is wrong with D? You had very sound analysis. But think about this: what if the strong opposition from his own party just came from a very few members? Can you still say he acted on behalf of his party's interests? Secondly, the major error of the reasoning underlies the gap between the conclusion (act in the interests of the nation) and the premise(the act was a courageous ). We should get hold of the entire picture.

Thank you for your "stubbornness". I believe such discussion are beneficial to both of us. None of us should ever assume that we would always be right. So, discussion is always welcomed

Thanks so much for your detailed explaination.

But I still need time to digest.

Really appreciate it.