PrepTest 109, Section 1, Question 19
Historian: The spread of literacy informs more people(61 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AA demagogue can(21 more words not shown)
- BWithout literacy there(11 more words not shown)
- CAny comprehensive system(12 more words not shown)
- DA lack of(14 more words not shown)
- EAny benign regime(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why would helping people read make a relatively benign government easier to overthrow?
The historian describes an awkward interval: people become literate before a comprehensive system of general education exists. They can now read about injustices and encounter calls for reform, but the historian says they are vulnerable to clever people who use those calls to gain power. A government's attempt to inform its population could therefore give an opportunist an opening.
I can follow that proposed chain without being convinced by every connection. Why is the interval before general education especially dangerous? Would people actually be taken in by these calls for change? The timing alone doesn't explain that vulnerability.
What we’re looking for
This is a necessary-assumption question. I don't yet have a precise answer in mind; my broad concern is whether the people would be susceptible in the way the historian describes. I'll test the choices for something the reasoning needs, keeping the conclusion's modest scope in view: some regimes may be toppled, not every regime inevitably will be.
Working the answers
- A
This puts the opportunity on the wrong side of the timeline. It says a demagogue cannot get the needed support unless general education is already in place. The historian's concern is that a demagogue could gain support during the interval before that system exists. A blocks the very possibility the argument describes.
- B
Literacy can inform more people without being the only way anyone becomes aware of injustice. People might already know of some injustices through experience or conversation. The historian doesn't need to deny that. B turns an increase in awareness into a claim that awareness is impossible without literacy.
- C
Even if general education helps people assess calls for reform, that doesn't establish the overall political effect of every comprehensive education system. Such a system could have other effects, and a benign regime could face other reasons for losing power. The argument doesn't need a broad rule that any such system tends to preserve benign governments.
- DCorrect
This identifies the missing connection behind my question about the timing. The historian treats the lack of general education as a reason people cannot reliably tell a genuine reformer from someone exploiting the demand for change. That lack must affect their ability to make the distinction.
Imagine lacking general education made no difference to that ability. Then pointing to the interval before education would not explain why the newly literate population is vulnerable. The historian needs a connection between the educational gap and the difficulty of judging reform claims.
D supplies that connection without claiming education makes everyone immune to manipulation. It also doesn't have to guarantee that a demagogue succeeds. It supports the proposed vulnerability, which is all this part of the argument requires.
- E
“Will be toppled” is much stronger than “may be toppled,” and “any benign regime” is much stronger than “some relatively benign regimes.” A government could lack comprehensive general education yet remain in power. The historian's claim that an effort to spread literacy can sometimes backfire doesn't require this guaranteed outcome.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.