PrepTest 119, Section 4, Question 16
In countries where government officials are neither selected(80 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- APeople who have(20 more words not shown)
- BA free press(20 more words not shown)
- CCivil disorder cannot(15 more words not shown)
- DPeople tend not(12 more words not shown)
- ECivil disorder does(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Not having a say isn't the same as not understanding the purpose.
The author describes countries with neither free elections nor a free press: citizens live under policies they had no role in creating. Then the argument explains their tendency toward civil disorder by saying that people who don't understand restrictions are more likely to express frustration through disorder.
But how did we establish that these citizens don't understand? Someone could have no part in making a policy and still know exactly what the government is trying to accomplish. For example, a citizen might understand that a restriction is meant to stop people from challenging the government, even while opposing that purpose.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for a required assumption. I'd connect the two descriptions the author has treated as interchangeable: no participation in creating the restrictions, and no understanding of their purpose. Without that connection, the rule about people who don't understand restrictions hasn't been shown to apply to the citizens described.
Working the answers
- A
The argument doesn't need a comparison of how rationally participants and nonparticipants act. Its explanation concerns understanding restrictions and expressing frustration. People could participate in making laws without being more rational overall, and that would leave the proposed explanation open.
- B
A free press might communicate policy purposes better, but this particular argument doesn't require that comparison. It moves from citizens having no role in making policies to their presumed lack of understanding. B compares methods of communication without supplying that missing connection. Also, a press that isn't free isn't necessarily nonexistent.
- C
Being prone to disorder doesn't mean security forces could never prevent it. The argument describes a tendency arising from frustration, not a guarantee that disorder will occur regardless of government action. This sweeping claim about the limits of security forces isn't required.
- DCorrect
Without participating in making restrictions, people tend not to understand their purpose. That is the connection the argument needs. The citizens have no role in making the policies; D gives a reason to place them in the group whose lack of understanding increases the tendency toward disorder.
Notice that D describes a tendency, not an absolute rule that nobody can understand a policy they didn't help create. The conclusion also concerns a tendency toward disorder, so we don't need that stronger claim.
- E
The argument concerns countries lacking both free elections and a free press. It doesn't require countries with either freedom to be generally free of civil disorder. There could be other sources of disorder in those countries without undermining this explanation for the countries being discussed.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.