PrepTest 114, Section 2, Question 13
Historian: Political regimes that routinely censor various forms(49 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AUnless a piece(15 more words not shown)
- BNot all political(18 more words not shown)
- CA totalitarian regime(12 more words not shown)
- DWidespread public passivity(10 more words not shown)
- EMost writings that(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why would less public passivity threaten the regime?
Unpack the first sentence before tackling the second. The historian describes governments that regularly ban expression in the name of public morality. Those governments then expand the banned categories to cover criticism they see as a threat to their power. Imagine a government starting with a moral objection to certain advertisements and later using its restrictions against criticism of the leader. That is an illustration of the stated pattern, not a claim that every restriction on speech develops this way.
The conclusion applies that pattern to writings that would make the public less passive. A passive public largely stays on the sidelines; less passivity might mean people speak out or challenge what the government does. I can see why a ruler might find that threatening, but the argument hasn't actually connected those ideas.
What we’re looking for
The necessary assumption should make that connection: a regime can see a less passive public as a danger to its power. What matters is the regime's perception. The opening doesn't require that the criticism really could remove the regime from power.
Working the answers
- A
This is a claim about what makes writing popular. The argument concerns why a regime would give certain writings a prohibited label. It considers what would happen if the writings became widely influential; it doesn't need a general rule that popularity requires expressing an existing widespread belief.
- B
Other kinds of regimes might use moral censorship too. Or they might not. Either possibility leaves the needed connection between reduced passivity and a perceived threat unresolved. The historian's reasoning about totalitarian regimes doesn't depend on whether other kinds of regimes also use this practice.
- CCorrect
This connects the conclusion's reduced public passivity with the premise's perceived threat to power. Without even the possibility that a totalitarian regime sees that loss of passivity as threatening, the described pattern of suppressing perceived threats wouldn't explain classifying these writings as blasphemous or pornographic.
C says the regime can perceive a threat. It doesn't demand that every active citizen pose a real danger or that losing passivity always bring a government down. That limited connection is what the reasoning needs.
- D
This says widespread passivity is usually actually needed to keep power. The argument needs a connection to what the regimes perceive as threatening, not a general truth about what political survival requires. A ruler might perceive a threat incorrectly. D's broader claim about widespread passivity and actual necessity isn't required.
- E
Watch where the statement starts. The argument says many regimes put a prohibited label on writings that would reduce passivity. E starts with the writings that receive those labels and says most would have that effect.
Those regimes might also label many other writings blasphemous or pornographic for different reasons. Even if they label every threatening work that way, it doesn't follow that most labeled works are threatening. E adds that broader claim about the contents of the labeled group without supplying the missing perception link.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.