PrepTest 109, Section 4, Question 10
Critic: Some writers have questioned Stalin's sanity during(71 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(13 more words not shown)
- Awhether Stalin should(10 more words not shown)
- Bwhether Stalin's cruel(6 more words not shown)
- Cwhether it is(17 more words not shown)
- Dwhether tyranny tends(4 more words not shown)
- Ewhether it was(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Is the suspicion being explained as a sign of mental illness, or as part of holding on to a dictatorship?
The writers question Stalin's sanity in his final years and use paranoia and “morbid suspiciousness” to explain his conduct. The critic offers a different account. A ruler in that position might be suspicious because maintaining power requires watching for threats. On this account, the political situation helps explain the behavior.
The critic also points out that the cruelty and deviousness were present earlier. That observation alone wouldn't prove Stalin was sane; someone could propose that a psychological problem had existed earlier too. We don't need to resolve that historical or psychological question to understand the argument.
What we’re looking for
For the disagreement, keep the focus on the competing explanations. The writers point toward Stalin's psychological state. The critic emphasizes the conditions of remaining a tyrant. I'd look for an answer about why he behaved this way, rather than whether the cruel acts happened or whether cruelty is acceptable.
Working the answers
- A
Neither side is disputing whether the cruel deeds are attributable to Stalin or whether he should be held guilty. They are offering explanations of his conduct. A dispute about why someone acted isn't automatically a dispute about accountability for the actions.
- B
Both accounts accept the suspiciousness. The writers use it in questioning his sanity; the critic says it is characteristic of tyrants. The dispute concerns what explains the behavior and how to interpret it, not whether there is evidence of suspiciousness at all.
- C
This assumes both sides are comparing reasons to doubt Stalin's sanity. The critic isn't ranking paranoia against cruelty as the better evidence of insanity. The critic is questioning that psychological explanation and proposing a political account. C puts both speakers inside a debate only one side is pursuing.
- D
We don't know that the writers reject a general connection between tyranny and cruelty. They could think tyranny encourages cruelty while also attributing Stalin's particular conduct to his psychological state. D doesn't give us a clear opposing position from them.
- ECorrect
This captures the competing explanations. The writers interpret the conduct in terms of Stalin's psychological state. The critic instead emphasizes what a tyrant must do to remain in power, treating the political condition as the relevant explanation.
The disagreement isn't whether Stalin was suspicious; both accounts include that. It is whether the behavior is primarily explained by his mental state or by his position and the demands of holding power.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.