PrepTest 116, Section 3, Question 12
Some argue that because attaining governmental power in(65 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- AGovernment policymakers cannot(15 more words not shown)
- BDemocracies are more(16 more words not shown)
- CIn the formulation(26 more words not shown)
- DIn dealing with(23 more words not shown)
- EDemocracies appear to(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Listening to changing public interests can be useful. But changing direction all the time can have a cost too.
A winning coalition can bring together people with different priorities. One group may care most about the environment, another about taxes. Pleasing everyone can require compromise, and their priorities may shift over time. The author sees an advantage in policymakers responding to those changes: democracy can adapt to serve the public.
Now imagine an environmental project that needs twenty years of steady work. If the public loses interest after a year and politicians abandon the project, responsiveness could prevent an important goal from being achieved. That's a hypothetical cost of changing course. It doesn't show that flexibility is always bad; it shows why having a benefit doesn't automatically settle the balance.
What we’re looking for
The conclusion says this behavior is more beneficial than harmful. For the necessary-assumption question, I'd want the author to stand behind that comparison. The advantage of adapting must outweigh the harm from failing to stick to principles. Otherwise, the benefit the author identifies wouldn't justify the overall judgment.
Working the answers
- A
The argument doesn't require politicians to retain every faction of their original coalition. They might lose support from one faction and gain support elsewhere. More importantly, the author's judgment concerns the value of adapting policy, not a universal rule about how politicians must preserve their original electoral support.
- B
Understanding complexity is different from adapting to public interests. The author doesn't compare the intelligence or understanding of policymakers in democratic and nondemocratic systems. The proposed advantage of responsiveness could exist even if policymakers in both systems understood issues equally well.
- CCorrect
Put the wording into everyday terms. 'Adaptability to diverse or fluctuating public interests' means being able to respond when people want different things or change their priorities. 'A lack of strict fidelity to principle' means not always sticking firmly to principles. C says the advantage of the first outweighs the drawback of the second.
That comparison is what the conclusion needs. If the costs of abandoning principles were just as great as, or greater than, the benefit of adapting, the author couldn't reach 'more a benefit than an evil' from the benefit described. C doesn't deny all harm; it says the benefit wins the comparison.
- D
Policymakers could sometimes appeal to an unpopular principle while also shifting other policies to please constituents. The author doesn't need majority support to be a requirement for every appeal to principle. D imposes a rigid rule on individual decisions that the broader argument never commits to.
- E
The argument doesn't need a claim about how democracies compare with every nondemocratic system. It identifies a benefit of a particular behavior within democracy. Whether another form of government is equally flexible, more flexible, or less flexible doesn't establish the balance between that behavior's benefits and harms.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.