PrepTest 114, Section 4, Question 21
Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does(40 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the political(6 more words not shown)
- Aconfuses the conditions(12 more words not shown)
- Bfails to consider(18 more words not shown)
- Cappeals to historical(10 more words not shown)
- Doverlooks the possibility(15 more words not shown)
- Ebases its historical(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if these are exceptions? An oppressive democracy shows that democracy doesn't guarantee freedom. It doesn't show that democracy never helps produce freedom.
I can imagine people voting for oppressive leaders. That would explain how a democracy could end badly without establishing that democratic government has no beneficial effect on freedom. Likewise, a ruler could allow considerable freedom without giving people democratic control. Neither example settles what democracy tends to contribute.
The political scientist moves from these historical cases to a general claim that democracy doesn't promote freedom. Before accepting that, I'd want to know whether the cases are representative or have been selected because they support that claim. Perhaps democracies generally encourage freedom despite these exceptions.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw, I'd look for an answer explaining why the exceptions don't establish the conclusion. We need to distinguish what these cases show from the broader claim the scientist wants them to support.
Working the answers
- A
This isn't a simple switch from a requirement to a guarantee, or from a guarantee to a requirement. The author uses examples to show that democracy isn't required for freedom and doesn't guarantee it, then takes that to mean democracy doesn't help promote it. D identifies that additional mistaken step.
- B
This asks whether freedom might help cause democracy. The argument concerns whether democracy helps cause freedom. Even if the relationship in B existed, it wouldn't settle the effect the author is denying. Keep the proposed cause and result in their proper places.
- C
The examples are relevant: they concern political systems and the freedom those systems provide. The concern is whether they justify the broad conclusion. A relevant example can still be an exception, and a collection of selected exceptions can give a misleading picture. C calls the evidence irrelevant instead of explaining its limitation.
- DCorrect
Democracy could encourage freedom without being required for every instance of freedom or being enough, by itself, to guarantee freedom. The free nondemocracies rule out a requirement; the oppressive democracies rule out a guarantee. Neither rules out a helpful effect.
That is why our concern about exceptions matters. The scientist hasn't shown that the examples eliminate the possibility that democracy contributes to freedom. We don't have to prove that democracy actually does so to show that this reasoning leaves that possibility open.
- E
The author offers historical examples, not merely a personal preference about democracy. We can question what those examples establish without inventing a claim that the scientist is relying on personal feelings. E doesn't describe the reasoning presented.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.