PrepTest 113, Section 4, Question 19
Large-scale government projects designed to benefit everyone—such as(58 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- ALarge-scale government projects(6 more words not shown)
- BLarge-scale projects are(15 more words not shown)
- CGovernment by referendum(5 more words not shown)
- DThe primary purpose(14 more words not shown)
- EGovernment by referendum(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I could support a school even if I didn't have children. Unequal benefits don't mean everyone outside the most helped group must oppose a project. Likewise, a new road might help my neighbors more than it helps me without being worthless to the community.
The argument nevertheless gives us a relationship to work with: spreading political power more widely makes these projects less likely to receive funding. I'll accept that for the question. The conclusion adds two things we need to examine.
First, does government by referendum distribute power more equally and widely than government through elected representatives? The argument needs a link between the form of government it criticizes and the distribution of power in its premise.
Second, are the projects actually good for society? They are designed to benefit everyone, but a good intention doesn't guarantee a good result. If losing funding is supposed to diminish society's welfare, we need some reason to treat the projects as beneficial.
What we’re looking for
Those are my two predictions for the required assumption. An answer could supply one missing link without repairing the entire argument.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This supplies the second link. At least some of these projects must actually enhance society's welfare for reduced funding to support the argument's negative judgment about government by referendum.
Try removing that possibility: suppose large-scale government projects never enhanced society's welfare. We couldn't then use their reduced likelihood of funding as a reason that society would be worse off. A only says they sometimes help. It doesn't say every project succeeds or that society cannot function without them. That modest claim is enough to identify a necessary part of this reasoning, even though other gaps remain.
- B
Perhaps private organizations could sometimes do these projects better. The argument doesn't need to take that position. It criticizes a form of government on the basis of its effect on funding; it doesn't compare government execution with private execution. B's claim about which provider is more likely to succeed isn't required.
- C
The democratic process and society's welfare are different things to evaluate. The author could think referendums were thoroughly democratic while still believing they produced worse results for society. C assumes a criticism of the process itself that the conclusion doesn't require.
- D
A purpose isn't an effect. The argument concerns what happens when power is distributed more equally, not the main reason people might want that distribution. They might seek equal representation for its own sake while the claimed effect on project funding remained the same. D doesn't supply either missing link.
- E
This is related to my first prediction, but only is too strong. The argument needs a relevant connection between referendums and the distribution of power. It doesn't need referendums to be the sole possible way of distributing power equally and widely. Another method could do that too without defeating the comparison with elected representatives.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.