22. The poll was of eligible voters, however, how many of those actually voted? If it turns out that those polled who intend to vote for Muratori turn out in much greater numbers, then the discrepancy is better understood. For (E), if Muratori's supporters are more likely to describe the election as important, then presumably Muratori's supporters who were polled are also much more likely than Kenner's to actually vote, and thus (E) is the correct choice. Note that this does not completely resolve the discrepancy, but the question simply asks for a choice that "most helps", not completely resolves. All other choices will either do nothing to help resolve the discrepancy, or make things more confusing.
(A) explains why voters might choose Muratori over Kenner, or Kenner over Muratori, but does nothing to explain the discrepancy.
For (B), we don't know whether those in the poll were aware of that Kenner was the incumbent, or what effect Kenner's being an incumbent had on his or her re-election chances.
(C) explains why Muratori beat Kenner, but does not explain the discrepancy; indeed, (C) makes things more confusing. If during the past year Kenner was implicated in scandals, presumably those polled would be less likely to vote for him or her, and Muratori would more likely be ahead in both the polls and win the actual election. Also, we don't know whether those polled "just recently" were aware of the scandal implications.
(D) refers to "six months" whereas the poll was "just before", which presumably means a week or so before. Also, the poll was of eligible voters, which includes those who were six months previously were allowed to vote because of the voting age change. If (D) stated or implied that the poll did not include these recently enfranchised voters, then (D) might be attractive.
23. The original argument is fine until the final sentence, which contains the main conclusion. The first sentence states that statistical analysis is a "common" tool, but the main conclusion is based on the assumption that it is the only tool. However, if the physical sciences have other tools to explain human mental events, then perhaps the physical sciences could explain those events.
The argument's structure works this way:
|P1: Statistical analysis used to explain g Events replicated to last detail|
P2: Human mental events are
|Secondary Conclusion: Statistical analysis cannot be used to explain human mental events.|
|A: Statistical analysis is the only tool that can be used by physical sciences to explain human mental|
|C: Human mental events cannot be explained by physical sciences|
Minus the content:
|P1: Use of W g X|
P2: Y is
|Secondary Conclusion: W cannot be used to explain Y|
|A: W is the only tool that can be used by Z to explain Y|
|C: Y cannot be explained by Z|
Notice that a secondary conclusion appears within the argument. Any choice without a secondary conclusion may be immediately eliminated -- only (D) and (E) contain secondary conclusions.
The correct choice, Choice (E), contains a secondary conclusion and most closely parallels:
|P1: Use of W (coherent narrative) g X (details known)|
P2: Y (very ancient historical events) is
|Secondary Conclusion: W cannot be used to explain Y|
|C: Y cannot be explained by Z (anyone)|
(A) does not contain a flaw or a secondary conclusion. (A) parallels the original argument up to a point. But, (A) does not make the final leap that if one tool cannot explain something, then that thing cannot be explained. (A)'s structure:
|P1: Use of W (computer modeling) g X (predictable phenomenon)|
P2: Y (wind resistance) is
|C: W cannot be used to explain Y|
(B) starts out stating that W is the only way (tool). However, this is an assumption in the original argument, not a premise, so you can stop reading (B) and save time.
(C) works this way:
|P1: Interaction of light and matter best tool to explain object's color.|
P2: Sometimes impossible to determine an object's matter.
|C: Color of such objects has nothing to do with interaction of light and matter.|
(C) lacks a secondary conclusion, so you could eliminate it quickly on this basis rather than doing mental gymnastics trying to determine the flaw, which is the assumption that people must be able to determine an object's matter for the color of that same object to have anything to do with the interaction of light and matter. Of course, physical objects may interact even if humans lack certain knowledge about those interactions.
(D) contains a secondary conclusion, and seems close, but (D) works this way:
|P1: Determine W (which explanation correct) g X (know first moments of existence)|
P2: Y (immense amount of time)
|Secondary Conclusion: X impossible|
|C: No explanation likely to be correct.|
The error in (D) is that if people are unable to know for certain which explanation is correct, then no explanation can be correct. Of course, it's possible that people do not know for sure whether or not an explanation is correct, yet the explanation is still correct.
24. The author assumes that the 16% who are prepared to donate money are also among the 26% who are willing to join. However, if it turns out that the 16% who are willing to donate and 26% who are wiling to join are different people, then 42% of eligible voters will join or donate, and thus the requirement for long-run viability is met. (E) states that the 16% and 26% might be distinct and is the correct choice.
(A) supports the argument's claim that the party might not be viable in the long-term.
(B) states "viable", but the conclusion is limited to long-term viability.
(C) refers to how much money donated, but the argument is only concerned with how many people are willing to donate.
(D) states "viable", but the conclusion is limited to long-term viability.