PrepTest 115, Section 2, Question 10
Claude: To introduce greater public accountability into French(56 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(9 more words not shown)
- AThe public would(16 more words not shown)
- BNot every issue(11 more words not shown)
- CDecision by referendum(24 more words not shown)
- DRequiring a large(25 more words not shown)
- EElections decided mainly(23 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
An uninformed public could make poor decisions. But must a referendum end in disaster? Claude proposes direct public votes on major foreign-policy issues because ordinary elections bundle many issues together. A party could win because of its economic platform even if its foreign policy is unpopular. Lorraine responds that the public won't or can't become informed enough to make these decisions well.
Even if many people are uninformed now, who would actually vote? Perhaps the people who know little about the issue would stay home, leaving a more informed group to decide. Or perhaps receiving a direct vote would motivate people to learn. Those possibilities make Lorraine's prediction less automatic.
What we’re looking for
This time we're asked to support Lorraine's conclusion. I'd look for evidence that uninformed people would vote anyway, without considering the consequences. That would address the first concern. More generally, we need a reason to believe that making decisions by referendum would have serious bad consequences for foreign policy.
Working the answers
- A
This points against Lorraine's forecast. If holding a referendum would make the public better informed, she has less reason to project current ignorance into the proposed system. The answer doesn't prove that referenda would work well, but it weakens the particular concern she raises.
- B
Limiting referenda to major outlines doesn't show that they would cause disaster. It doesn't eliminate the possibility of disaster either: a broad policy decision could have major consequences. B tells us which questions would go to a vote, without giving the requested reason to expect harmful results.
- CCorrect
This supplies a different reason for the bad outcome than the one I predicted. A succession of referendum decisions would make France's overall policy unpredictable. Friendly countries would then lack a consistent French position on which to base their own decisions.
Imagine another country planning around a policy France has adopted, then being unable to rely on France maintaining that course. Cooperation becomes harder when partners cannot plan with confidence. C gives a concrete foreign-policy consequence of the proposal, supporting Lorraine's conclusion even without proving that voters are ignorant. A strengthener can support the conclusion by adding a new problem with the plan.
- D
Treating an issue as important and thinking about it doesn't supply evidence of disaster. If anything, it answers part of the concern that voters would act carelessly. It doesn't guarantee expertise or wise decisions, but that limitation is not a positive reason to believe Lorraine's forecast.
- E
This distinguishes approving past decisions from judging new future problems. It might help explain why an election result isn't a clear mandate for future policy, which relates to Claude's concern. But it doesn't establish what would happen if those future questions were put to referenda, much less that the result would be disastrous.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.