PrepTest 133, Section 2, Question 2
Some political thinkers hope to devise a form(58 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- AIn any form(20 more words not shown)
- BA government can(15 more words not shown)
- CNot all the(11 more words not shown)
- DIn any form(20 more words not shown)
- EPeople who have(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A senator has more political power than I do. Does that mean my rights have been violated?
That's the connection this argument needs. The author says a government that respects every citizen's rights is impossible. The reason is that some people will learn to use the laws to gain more political power than others. But unequal power and violated rights aren't automatically the same thing. A government official could have more authority while the rest of us kept our rights.
So I'm willing to accept the prediction that power will become unequal. I still want to know why that makes respecting everyone's rights impossible.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for an assumption the argument requires. Look for the missing connection from unequal political power to a violation of somebody's rights. We don't need a prediction that nearly everyone will suffer. To rule out a government that respects every citizen's rights, a violation of even one person's rights is enough.
Working the answers
- A
Why the majority? The argument needs somebody's rights to be violated, not most people's rights. Suppose a powerful group violates the rights of a small minority while everyone else's rights remain respected. That would still prevent the government from respecting every citizen's rights. A would help prove the conclusion, but its claim about the majority goes beyond what the argument requires.
- B
This offers a way to do the very thing the author calls impossible. If keeping citizens ignorant could ensure that everyone's rights were respected, a government that respected everyone's rights would be possible. B conflicts with the conclusion instead of supplying its missing support.
- C
Interpreting a law to gain power isn't necessarily misinterpreting it. Someone might correctly understand a provision that other people have overlooked. More fundamentally, the argument doesn't require any particular number of laws to resist misuse. A few laws could provide the opportunity to gain power; we don't need a claim about whether all the others can be misinterpreted.
- DCorrect
Unequal political power now leads to somebody's rights being violated. The author tells us that unequal power is inevitable, and this assumption connects that outcome to the conclusion about rights. Without that connection, people could end up with different amounts of power while everyone's rights remained respected—the possibility the argument needs to rule out.
- E
More power leading to even more power still leaves us talking about power. What happens to people's rights? A powerful group could keep increasing its influence without violating anyone's rights, unless we add the connection in D. E doesn't supply that connection.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.