PrepTest 119, Section 2, Question 9
Alice: In democracies, politicians garner support by emphasizing(52 more words not shown)
The statements above provide the(12 more words not shown)
- Apoliticians heighten the(8 more words not shown)
- Bbasic policies change(9 more words not shown)
- Cin a democracy(14 more words not shown)
- Dmost voters stay(15 more words not shown)
- Ethe desire of(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Do politicians actually govern the way they campaign?
Alice assumes they must. Politicians win support by emphasizing differences, then supposedly have to carry those differences into government. That's how she gets to policies swinging wildly when the governing party changes. But why couldn't a candidate promise lower spending and then soften that promise after winning? Campaign talk doesn't automatically become policy.
Elwell makes that distinction. To assemble a majority coalition, elected politicians usually soften their positions. A politician may move in the general direction promised while compromising on how far to go. That challenges Alice's picture of election rhetoric dictating what happens in office.
What we’re looking for
We're asked where they disagree. My first description would be whether politicians must govern in line with their campaign positions. That's the disagreement I'll keep in mind while comparing the answers.
Working the answers
- A
Elwell doesn't deny that politicians emphasize their differences during elections. The reply starts with what happens despite the rhetoric once politicians need a governing majority. Both speakers could accept the same description of campaigning and disagree about what follows afterward.
- BCorrect
This states the disagreement through its effect on policy. Alice explicitly says policies fluctuate wildly when parties replace one another. Elwell responds that politicians soften their stands to build coalitions, challenging the expectation of those drastic swings.
That's less direct than my initial prediction about campaign promises, but it tracks the same conflict: Alice carries sharp campaign differences into governing policy; Elwell introduces compromise that softens them. We don't have to claim Elwell thinks policies never change. The disputed claim is that basic policies change drastically as parties succeed one another.
- C
Neither speaker ranks methods of maintaining continuity. Elwell mentions coalitions as a reason politicians moderate their positions, but doesn't call a coalition government the best way to keep policy steady. Alice doesn't address that comparison either.
- D
We aren't told whether voters remain loyal when a party changes its views. Alice discusses how politicians seek support, and Elwell discusses how they build governing majorities. Those claims don't establish opposing views about voter loyalty.
- E
Elwell describes coalition building, but neither speaker evaluates whether the desire to build coalitions supports democratic systems. Alice doesn't even discuss that desire. We need a conflict over a claim they address, not a new judgment about the value of coalitions.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.