PrepTest 152, Section 4, Question 25
Editorial: Any democratic society is endangered by segmentation(49 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(10 more words not shown)
- ADiscord within a(10 more words not shown)
- BPolitical factions are(15 more words not shown)
- CEconomic expansion results(20 more words not shown)
- DEconomic expansion cannot(17 more words not shown)
- EThe presence of(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why do entrenched income classes threaten democracy? The editorial answers that question: divisions between people who are far apart economically and find it hard to move between classes strengthen factions that obstruct good governance.
Economic expansion is supposed to help by opening opportunities to improve economic standing. I can see the proposed benefit. But what about the costs of pursuing constant growth? What if those policies make us neglect another serious problem? Establishing a benefit doesn't automatically settle which policies a society should adopt.
What we’re looking for
For the strengthener, my initial thought is evidence supporting that policy choice—perhaps showing the benefit is especially important or that the competing costs aren't serious. The answer needs to make the editorial's case for expansion more convincing.
Working the answers
- A
This describes discord worsening wealth inequality. That could reinforce how the problems feed into one another, but it doesn't establish that expansion will reduce the divisions or improve mobility. The editorial needs support for its proposed response, not just another way the problem could get worse.
- B
Factions sometimes agreeing on expansion policies might make adoption easier. It doesn't establish why those policies would produce the social benefit the editorial relies on. Occasional willingness to cooperate isn't evidence that expansion will loosen the income divisions driving the argument.
- CCorrect
This strengthens the promised benefit rather than directly answering my question about costs. Lower-income people get proportionally larger earnings increases, so expansion doesn't merely raise everyone's income while leaving their relative positions unchanged. It helps those at the lower end catch up in relative terms.
That makes expansion a more plausible response to the gap between income classes and the limited opportunity to improve one's standing. C doesn't prove that particular people cross into a higher class or that every political division disappears. It supplies a reason to expect the kind of improvement on which the recommendation depends.
- D
This gives a requirement for expansion: investment by wealthy people. It doesn't tell us whether that investment will occur or whether expansion improves the position of lower-income people. The answer describes something needed to produce growth, not evidence for the claimed benefit of growth.
- E
Factions obstructing expansion would be an obstacle to carrying out the proposed policy. It doesn't show that achieving expansion reduces the underlying divisions. The direction matters: the editorial recommends growth to address a problem; E says that problem can make growth harder to achieve.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.