请教LSAT 8-II-3

zy_cupt

3. Citizen of Mooresville: Mooresville's current city council is having a ruinous effect on municipal finances. Since a majority of the incumbents are running for reelection, I am going to campaign against all these incumbents in the upcoming city council election. The only incumbent I will support and vote for is the one who represents my own neighborhood, because she has the experience necessary to ensure that our neighborhoods interests are served. If everyone in Mooresville would follow my example, we could substantially change the council's membership.
Assuming that each citizen of Mooresville is allowed to vote only for a city council representative from his or her own neighborhood, for the council's membership to be changed substantially, it must be true that
(A) at least some other voters in Mooresville do not make the same exception for their own incumbent in the upcoming election


做了一段时间LSAT，从答案的结构就看出应该选A（也许算猜吧）。但还是没有弄明白为什么选A。请哪位大大指点一下解题思路，谢谢！
(B) most of the eligible voters in Mooresville vote in the upcoming election
(C) few of the incumbents on the Mooresville city council have run for reelection in previous elections
(D) all of the seats on the Mooresville city council are filled by incumbents whose terms are expiring
(E) none of the challengers in the upcoming election for seats on Mooresville's city council are better able to serve the interests of their neighborhoods than were the incumbents

tocean0222

Assuming that voters, as stated in A, all support and vote for the same candidate to replace the council in incumbent  in ,thus the membership will not be changed substantially the coming election.So A is necessary to the establishment of the conclusion.

Bensontuo

zy_cupt 发表于 2003-7-11 16:04
3. Citizen of Mooresville: Mooresville's current city council is having a ruinous effect on municipa ...

Must be true = Necessary assumption without " new information "

P1:  Citizen A is going to against all incumbent in the upcoming city council elections.

P2:  Support of citizen A and Vote of citizen A ----> Incumbent representing A's neighborhood ----> She has experiences ----> interest of the neighbor could be served.

P3:  Follow A's action ----> Substantially change the council's membership.

Q: If A ( If each citizen only be allowed to vote for the council's representative from the neighborhood, then the council's membership must be changed substantially ) is true, then B ( Must be true )

What is B ? - Necessary assumption.

As a result, what we need to do is to looking for the options that would negate A, which is that even if each citizen only being allowed to vote for the representatives from his or her own neighborhood, the membership of the council would not be changed substantially.

A. negate it, " No " other voters in Mooresville do not make the same exception for their own incumbent in the upcoming election.

HELL YA,  if no one would feel the same as as Citizen A feels, then, It must be necessary true that all of the voters would not be necessary supporting and voting as the way Citizen A would. And if that's the case, them it also must be necessary true that the membership of council to not necessary be changed substantially.

B. Negate it, Not most of the eligible voters would vote. Even its true, it does not refute the argument that the membership would be changed substantially, since as long as more than certain numbers of the people who vote among the people who are eligible voters truly vote would support and vote as the way citizen A would, it still could be true that council's membership be changed substantially.

C. Negate it. Even if all incumbents does not run for reelections in previous elections, it does not mean there is no any incumbent would be supported and voted by Citizen A.

D. Negate it, " None " of the terms of incumbents of city council are expiring does not mean that people can't vote and support as citizen A will in the next coming election to replace the members of council substantially.

* keep in mind that within the condition of the argument, we have already limit the scope to the range that " Majority of the incumbents are running for reelection "

E. Negate it, at least one of the challengers in the upcoming election for easts on Mooresvilles' city council are better able to serve the interest of their neighborhoods than were the incumbents.

* Keep in mind that It does not refute the original argument, since if at least one of the challenger would better serve the interest of their neighborhoods than were the incumbents, then the membership of the city council could be change substantially. The negate version of option E actually does support the original argument.