PrepTest 119, Section 2, Question 4
Chapin: Commentators have noted with concern the recent(42 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(9 more words not shown)
- AParties that win(15 more words not shown)
- BMultiparty political systems(9 more words not shown)
- CCountries in which(18 more words not shown)
- DMembers of moderate(24 more words not shown)
- EPeople are not(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Winning less than half the vote doesn't sound like the same thing as posing no threat.
A plurality means receiving more votes than any competitor, even if the winner falls short of a majority. With several parties competing, 30 percent could be enough to win. Chapin treats that limitation as reassuring. But why couldn't a party with that much support still endanger democracy? And if there are several extremist parties, their combined support could be larger than any one party's share.
The moderates' arguing doesn't settle it either. That may explain how the extremists won, but why does an explanation of their victory make it harmless? We need a reason these successes cannot threaten democracy.
What we’re looking for
Also, the commentators' concern could be broader than democracy itself. They might worry about harmful policies even if elections continue. Chapin's conclusion is narrower: no threat to democracy. The question asks us to make that conclusion follow, so that's the gap we need to close. I'd want a rule saying that a party without a majority cannot create this kind of threat.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The extremists won pluralities without majorities, and A says parties in that position cannot bring about changes in their country's political arrangements, either directly or indirectly. Democracy is one of those arrangements. If these parties cannot change the arrangement at all, their electoral successes cannot threaten to change it away from democracy. This supplies the strong restriction Chapin needs.
- B
Comparing multiparty systems with two-party systems doesn't tell us whether these extremist victories pose a threat. A country could have the more democratic kind of system and still face a danger to it. We need a rule about the effect of winning without a majority, not a ranking of political systems.
- C
“Sometimes” leaves other cases open. Some countries with extremist pluralities may have strong democratic governments while others face a serious threat. Chapin says these successes pose no threat, so showing that such a success can coexist with a strong government isn't enough.
- D
We don't know whether the moderates consider the extremists a serious threat. Even if they do, D says they only sometimes cooperate against them, and opposing a party doesn't guarantee stopping it. There are several gaps between this possibility of cooperation and the conclusion that there is no threat.
- E
A voter's intention doesn't establish what the elected party can do. Someone might vote for an extremist party for reasons other than wanting an extremist government, yet help put that party in power. We need to rule out a threat to democracy, not explain why some people cast their votes.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.