PrepTest 133, Section 2, Question 13
Philosopher: Some of the most ardent philosophical opponents(50 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AA society should(21 more words not shown)
- BIn choosing a(21 more words not shown)
- CThe best form(19 more words not shown)
- DDemocratic governments are(19 more words not shown)
- EIt is better(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Would you give up a chance at the best government to avoid the worst?
That's the choice the philosopher is making. Concentrating power in a few hands could work wonderfully if those people were exceptionally capable and acted for everyone's benefit. It could also be disastrous if the people in charge used that power to oppress others. The passage asks us to accept that rule by the few includes both extremes.
Democracy is described as consistently mediocre. It doesn't promise the ideal result, but it avoids those extremes. I can see the appeal of taking that safer option. Still, preferring safety to a chance at greatness is a judgment the philosopher hasn't yet defended.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for a principle that helps justify the recommendation. I'd look for a rule saying it's better to avoid the worst possible government than to chase the best one. That would explain why the middle option is a better choice even though the philosopher doesn't call it the inherently best form of government.
Working the answers
- A
We don't know what most members of the society prefer. More importantly, the philosopher's reason is democracy's consistently middling performance, not its popularity. A rule about following the majority's preference doesn't connect that evidence to this recommendation unless we add information about the preference.
- BCorrect
Avoiding the worst should take priority over trying to achieve the best. That makes sense of choosing the consistently mediocre option over a category containing both extremes. We give up the possibility of the ideal government to avoid the possibility of the terrible one. B supplies the judgment about those competing possibilities that the argument needs.
- C
Which form is most likely to produce an outcome that is good overall? We aren't given those probabilities. Calling democracy consistently mediocre doesn't establish that it is most likely to produce a good result. C also defines the best form of government, while the argument explains why democracy is a better choice despite lacking that status. B directly addresses the tradeoff; C leaves it unresolved.
- D
Whether democratic governments are equitable, and what safeguards equity requires, aren't the issues the philosopher evaluates. We aren't told whether any government has the protections D describes. This rule doesn't tell us why avoiding the worst outcome justifies choosing a mediocre one.
- E
'Use sound philosophical reasons' sounds appealing, but which reasons support democracy? The argument needs a particular reason to favor the safe option. E doesn't tell us that avoiding disaster outweighs the chance of perfection, and we aren't comparing philosophical reasoning with a known popular preference. B gives the actual decision rule that E leaves unspecified.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.