PrepTest 134, Section 2, Question 25
Sociologist: Widespread acceptance of the idea that individuals(51 more words not shown)
The sociologist's argument requires the(2 more words not shown)
- Ademocratically elected legislators(9 more words not shown)
- Bpeople tend to(11 more words not shown)
- Clegislators often seem(25 more words not shown)
- Din most cases,(17 more words not shown)
- Ea legislator proposing(29 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A law can protect someone from a choice without necessarily sending the message that people can't take care of themselves. The argument needs to connect those ideas.
Imagine an adult making a dietary choice that, in the situation we're considering, harms only that adult. The sociologist says a legislator who values democracy should not propose a law prohibiting it. The concern isn't just the health effect of that choice. It's the belief such a law might spread about people's ability to manage their own welfare.
We are told that assumptions apparently guiding legislators often become widely accepted, and that widespread belief in people's inability to care for themselves harms democracy. Those pieces fit together. But what would a proposal to ban the behavior make the legislator appear to assume?
What we’re looking for
The missing link is that the proposal would signal that people are incapable of looking after themselves. Without that connection, we haven't shown why this particular kind of law would spread the particular harmful belief. That's the assumption the conclusion needs.
Working the answers
- A
The conclusion addresses legislators who value democracy. It doesn't assume every democratically elected legislator does. Some could be indifferent to democracy, and the sociologist could still give this advice to those who care about preserving it.
- B
This sounds close to the premise about legislators' apparent assumptions becoming widely accepted, but it is broader. The argument doesn't need a general tendency to believe whatever prominent and powerful people believe. Someone might follow legislators' signals while disregarding celebrities' opinions, for example. B also doesn't supply the missing connection between this law and the appearance of assuming individual incapacity.
- C
We don't need to establish that legislators often already appear to hold this belief. The argument warns against proposals because of what they would communicate. A warning can make sense before the conduct becomes common. C asserts an existing pattern without establishing why the particular proposal would carry that message.
- D
How often self-harming behavior also harms others is a different question. The conclusion singles out behavior that harms no one besides the person doing it. That category could be common or rare, and the reasoning about what legislators should propose within it would be the same. No majority claim is needed.
- ECorrect
This connects the proposed prohibition with the apparent assumption: people can't look after their own welfare. The other premises then explain the concern. Apparent legislative assumptions often spread, and widespread acceptance of this one harms democracy. E supplies the missing reason why a legislator who values democracy should avoid the proposal. It concerns how the law would appear, not whether the legislator privately holds that belief.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.