PrepTest 117, Section 4, Question 26
Political theorist: For all of its members to(71 more words not shown)
The conclusion drawn above follows(9 more words not shown)
- ACountries that refuse(16 more words not shown)
- BCountries become less(22 more words not shown)
- CProblems that appear(19 more words not shown)
- DEuropean Union member(16 more words not shown)
- EAlliances that are(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Which requirement isn't being met? The theorist gives us several requirements, then concludes that the European Union won't have all its members strong in foreign policy. But listing requirements doesn't show that anyone fails them. Maybe the EU meets every one.
Work through the chain. For all members to be strong, the alliance must respond aggressively. To respond aggressively, every member must see the problem as grave. For all EU members to see a problem as grave, they must all agree that it threatens the alliance's economy. That final agreement is therefore something the desired outcome needs, too.
What we’re looking for
We need an assumption that makes the conclusion follow. Show that a required step fails. For example, if one country thinks a problem threatens the economy but another doesn't, we won't have the agreement the chain demands. Other failures could also work; we need the answer to establish one, not merely tell us another thing that might matter.
Working the answers
- A
This compares countries outside alliances with countries inside them. The argument concerns whether all EU members will be strong in foreign policy under the stated requirements. Nonmembers being generally more aggressive doesn't establish that the EU fails any of those requirements. Less aggressive than someone else also needn't mean not aggressive.
- B
This gives us another conditional claim: greater wealth can reduce aggression if it leads countries to think they have more to lose. But are those conditions present here? We aren't told. Adding another rule without showing it applies doesn't establish a failure in the EU's chain.
- CCorrect
When some EU members see a problem as threatening the alliance's economy, others don't. That prevents the agreement needed for all members to regard the problem as grave. Without that shared perception, the alliance cannot respond aggressively as required; without that response, not all its members can be strong in foreign policy.
Follow each step rather than jumping straight from disagreement to weakness. The premises explain why this particular disagreement blocks the conclusion's desired outcome. We can conclude that not all members will be strong, not that every individual member must be weak.
- D
This tells us about countries that fail to perceive a problem's economic relevance. It doesn't establish that any EU countries actually fail to perceive it. And generally weak is weaker than the definite conclusion we need to establish. C supplies the disagreement itself instead of another description of what might follow from a condition.
- E
Economic benefits and foreign-policy benefits aren't necessarily the same. But the argument hasn't inferred one from the other. It has given us specific requirements for all members to be strong in foreign policy. E doesn't show that any required step fails.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
- PrepTest 117, Section 2, Question 13Sufficient Assumption
- PrepTest 117, Section 3, Question 5Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 10, Question 1Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 12, Question 4Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 13, Question 1Sufficient Assumption
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.