PrepTest 146, Section 1, Question 24
Families with underage children make up much of(47 more words not shown)
The argument requires assuming which(5 more words not shown)
- AThe amount of(20 more words not shown)
- BParents should not(21 more words not shown)
- CThe parents of(14 more words not shown)
- DIt is not(24 more words not shown)
- EA group of(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Would giving parents extra votes count as fair representation? It might increase the political weight of families with children, but that doesn't settle whether the proposed arrangement is fair.
Someone could think fairness means one vote per adult. The author instead proposes a vote on behalf of each child, cast by a parent. Those are different ideas about how representation should work. The fact that families with children make up much of the population doesn't, by itself, decide between them. And 'much' doesn't even give us an exact majority; it simply tells us this is a substantial group.
What we’re looking for
The required principle needs to make room for the author's proposed kind of representation. If having one family member vote for another could never be fair, the plan couldn't deliver the fair representation the conclusion promises.
Working the answers
- A
Exact proportionality is a stronger rule than the argument needs. The author can think families deserve more attention without claiming that every group's attention must track its number of voters in a precise ratio. A also doesn't address whether adding votes cast by parents for children produces fair representation. It proposes a rule for lawmakers' attention, rather than establishing the acceptability of this arrangement.
- B
This places a general limit on when parents should make decisions for children: only when the child is not mature enough to decide wisely. The argument doesn't rely on that broad rule about parental decisions. It needs the particular arrangement of parents casting additional votes to be compatible with fair representation.
- C
Parents might have good reasons to consider their children's interests, but the argument doesn't require a rule that they should always do so whenever they vote. The issue is whether the proposed extra votes can fairly represent the family. A blanket duty governing every parental vote is more than this justification requires.
- D
This criticizes favoring voters' interests over nonvoters' interests. It might give someone a reason to worry about the current system, but it doesn't establish why the proposed voting arrangement could be fair. The author can object that these families receive too little attention without adopting D's blanket prohibition on every preference for voters' interests. The specific proposed remedy still needs a justification.
- ECorrect
The proposal lets parents vote on behalf of other members of their families. For that proposal to yield fair representation, voting on someone else's behalf must at least be compatible with fair representation.
If no group could ever be fairly represented when some members voted for others, the author's remedy would fail immediately. E rules out that fatal objection. It doesn't say every such arrangement is fair or prove that this plan will work perfectly; it states a possibility the conclusion requires.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.