PrepTest 155, Section 4, Question 20
Political scientist: Democracy depends on free choices, and(41 more words not shown)
The political scientist's reasoning is(4 more words not shown)
- Amistakes necessary conditions(3 more words not shown)
- Bfails to take(11 more words not shown)
- Cconfuses the means(9 more words not shown)
- Dgeneralizes too hastily(7 more words not shown)
- Etakes for granted(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A society can have people who read very well and still deny them a meaningful choice about who governs them. That's the possibility the political scientist skips. The premises give us a chain of requirements: democracy needs free choices; free choices need well-reasoned opinions; and, in the Information Age, well-reasoned opinions need reading skills. Follow the chain and we can say reading skills are required for democracy.
But the conclusion goes the other way. It starts with a highly literate society and guarantees a democracy. What if everyone can read but nobody is allowed to vote? Literacy would be present while another requirement for democracy was missing. That's a hypothetical way to see the gap, not a claim about any particular country.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, we want the difference between something needed and something enough. A necessary condition is a requirement. A sufficient condition is enough to guarantee the result. The argument treats a requirement for democracy as though having it guarantees democracy.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Reading skills are established as something democracy needs, through the chain of requirements. The political scientist then treats high literacy as enough to produce democracy. But having one requirement doesn't establish that all the other things needed for democracy are present. Literate people might still lack free political choices.
- B
Perhaps people form opinions in several ways, but we must accept the stated premise that reading skills are essential here. Suggesting that television or a podcast could replace reading entirely would challenge that premise, rather than identify the mistake in moving from it to the conclusion. Several methods might also operate together without making literacy alone enough for democracy.
- C
The argument doesn't compare how someone accomplishes a goal with why they want that goal. It sets out requirements and then overstates what meeting one requirement establishes. No claim about anyone's motive supplies the inference we're criticizing.
- D
There is no particular case being used as a sample for a different kind of case. The political scientist starts with general requirements for democracy and draws a general conclusion about literacy. The problem is the direction of that reasoning, not an unsupported generalization from one observed society to another.
- E
If a condition really guaranteed that something occurs, then the requirements for that thing would have to be met too. For example, if a condition guaranteed democracy, the stated requirements of free choices and well-reasoned opinions would follow. That wouldn't be the mistake here. The author starts with literacy, which was only established as a requirement, and wrongly treats it as a guarantee. E doesn't identify that unsupported step.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.