PrepTest 109, Section 3, Question 9
At some point in any discussion of societal(65 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(13 more words not shown)
- AAlthough two socialist(25 more words not shown)
- BTwo democratic industrial(19 more words not shown)
- CAlthough each adhered(19 more words not shown)
- DTwo states founded(25 more words not shown)
- ETwo societies based(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The same general commitment could lead to different details. Two communities might agree that older citizens deserve support while choosing different levels of support—say, twenty-five thousand dollars in one place and thirty thousand in another.
That possibility helps clarify the claim. Principles can point both communities toward helping without settling the exact policy. So observing that the policies are roughly similar wouldn't by itself defeat the author's point about the details.
I'd still question how much this one example establishes. The conclusion says general principles are never enough to determine those details. We have discussed provisions for older people, but what about children or other areas of social policy? One example doesn't settle every application. And “That's how we do things here” shouldn't make us forget that people may have reasons for their choices.
What we’re looking for
To strengthen the argument, I'd want evidence that the elderly example reflects a broader pattern. Another case in which similar principles of justice lead to different policy decisions would help. Keep the direction clear: shared principles, different details.
Working the answers
- A
The parallel wording is tempting: the same principles and different choices. But these are electoral principles, and the difference is the machinery used to count ballots. Two machines could carry out exactly the same voting policy. A doesn't establish different social-policy provisions despite shared principles of justice.
- B
Capitalistic economic principles are not the principles of justice the argument discusses. The forestry comparison also doesn't establish a difference in social provisions produced by those shared justice principles. The states could devote different amounts of land to trees for reasons unrelated to this argument. We would have to supply the missing connection ourselves.
- C
We aren't told that these states share principles of justice. They each adhere to their own principles, and the result described is the same distribution of wealth. That doesn't show shared principles leaving room for different policy details. Both the starting comparison and the outcome miss what we need.
- DCorrect
The states adhere to similar principles of justice, yet they use different rules for deciding who qualifies for subsidized day care. That gives us another social-policy area where similar starting principles don't determine identical details.
They might both favor helping families while drawing the eligibility line in different places. We needn't assume that one treats day care as a right and the other rejects it altogether. Different requirements are enough to support the point about unresolved details.
This doesn't prove the conclusion's broad “never.” It gives the pattern more support beyond the single example about older citizens, which is what a strengthener needs to do.
- E
This goes from different principles to the same benefits. We need the other comparison: similar principles leading to different policy details.
Two different starting points can reach the same destination even if each starting point completely determines its own destination. So E doesn't show that knowing a state's general principles would leave the details of its policy undetermined.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.