PrepTest 126, Section 3, Question 19
Bureaucrat: The primary, constant goal of an ideal(57 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- AAn ideal bureaucracy(24 more words not shown)
- BFor each problem(19 more words not shown)
- CAn ideal bureaucracy(16 more words not shown)
- DAn ideal bureaucracy(24 more words not shown)
- EAny complaint that(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What happens when there are no new problems left?
The bureaucracy's goal is certainly ambitious: classify every possible problem and prepare a regulation for each one. Taken far enough, that could mean preparing for extremely unlikely scenarios—imagine an office planning how to respond to visiting Martians. But whether that sounds like a good use of resources isn't the issue the conclusion needs to establish.
The argument describes a process: a complaint reveals an unanticipated problem, so the bureaucracy expands its regulations. That explains why new regulations get added when new problems appear. It doesn't yet show that complaints revealing new problems will keep coming. If the supply eventually ran out, the described process could stop adding regulations.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for a required assumption. My prediction is that the bureaucracy will keep receiving complaints about problems its existing rules don't cover. Without that continuing source of new issues, the argument's explanation for an ever-expanding system runs out.
Working the answers
- A
An appeals procedure isn't necessarily a source of new problems. Even if it remained available after every problem had been covered, people could appeal decisions about issues already governed by the rules. A echoes the stated policy of providing appeals but doesn't supply the missing reason regulations would keep expanding. The argument doesn't depend on what happens after the imagined endpoint of having everything covered.
- B
A problem could be anticipated before anyone complained about it. The argument says complaints exposing new problems prompt new regulations; it doesn't say complaints are the only way a problem can be identified. B adds an unnecessary restriction on how the bureaucracy develops its rules.
- CCorrect
The bureaucracy never permanently runs out of complaints exposing uncovered problems. That's what keeps the described process going: more issues arrive that call for more regulations. If such complaints stopped for good, this reason for expecting endless expansion would fail. C doesn't require every complaint to reveal a new issue or require one to arrive at every moment.
- D
This gives an if-and-only-if rule for achieving the bureaucracy's entire goal. The argument doesn't establish or require that account of success. It describes how regulations expand in response to unexpected problems, and some problems could also be anticipated without complaints. We need continued new issues, not a claim that one process is both necessary and enough for achieving the whole goal.
- E
Every complaint needn't reveal something new. People could repeatedly complain about an issue the rules already cover. The argument only needs uncovered problems to continue appearing among the complaints; it doesn't need each individual complaint to be novel.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.