PrepTest 131, Section 2, Question 15
Bowers: A few theorists hold the extreme view(74 more words not shown)
The reasoning in Bowers's argument(9 more words not shown)
- Athe meaning of(11 more words not shown)
- Bthe argument fails(13 more words not shown)
- Cthe truth or(17 more words not shown)
- Dthe argument presumes,(9 more words not shown)
- Eit is unreasonable(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Bowers starts with a clear meaning of 'anarchy': the absence of government. Some theorists think society could flourish under that arrangement, and one describes it as taking laissez-faire capitalism to its extreme.
We might have concerns about removing government altogether. Wanting freedom from interference doesn't necessarily mean wanting to abandon rules about driver's licenses or protections against violence. But those concerns raise a question to investigate: would the absence of government necessarily destroy peace and order?
What we’re looking for
Bowers skips that question by changing what 'anarchy' means. At the end, it means chaos. 'Countenances' means permits or tolerates, so Bowers dismisses a philosophy that tolerates chaos. But the theorists advocated an absence of government, not chaos as such. Unless Bowers establishes that the first entails the second, the rejection trades on two different meanings of the same word. That's the shift I want the flaw answer to identify.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
'Anarchy' first means no government, then is equated with chaos. A principle requiring peace and order could support rejecting chaos. To use it to dismiss the theorists' proposal, however, Bowers needs to show that society without government cannot have peace and order. Shifting the definition doesn't supply that argument.
- B
Bowers's conclusion dismisses the theorists' defense of anarchy. It doesn't require rejecting laissez-faire capitalism generally. Mentioning one writer's comparison with capitalism doesn't turn the conclusion into a judgment against that whole social philosophy.
- C
Bowers calls the theorists few, but doesn't use their small number as the reason their view should be rejected. The stated reason is the supposed conflict with peace and order. Popularity is not doing the argumentative work here.
- D
The passage mentions flourishing, but Bowers doesn't argue that peace automatically makes every society flourish. The stated principle requires an acceptable philosophy to promote peace and order. Treating peace as a requirement isn't the same as treating it as enough to guarantee flourishing.
- E
Bowers does call the view extreme. But the rejection isn't based merely on that description; it rests on the claim that anarchy countenances chaos and so violates the peace-and-order requirement. E focuses on a negative label while missing the change of meaning that supplies the purported reason for dismissal.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.