PrepTest 157, Section 3, Question 13
Political theorist: The purpose of government is to(32 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AGovernments alone are(15 more words not shown)
- BGovernment can serve(11 more words not shown)
- CPeople who take(21 more words not shown)
- DPeople who injure(19 more words not shown)
- EThe more interest(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A person can think carefully about getting what they want and still decide to hurt someone.
Suppose someone reasons, “I'm stronger than that person, so I can take what they have.” That is a calculated way to pursue an advantage. Calling an approach “reasoned” hasn't yet made it considerate of other people.
The theorist says government's purpose is to prevent people from injuring others while pursuing their own welfare. Fine; use that stated purpose. Why would more reasoning mean we need less government power? The argument needs reasoning to reduce the very harm government is supposed to prevent. Otherwise, thoughtful pursuit of self-interest might leave the government's stated job just as necessary.
What we’re looking for
For the required assumption, look for that connection: people who take a reasoned approach are less likely to hurt others. We don't need to predict that they never hurt anyone. The conclusion calls for less government power, not the disappearance of all government.
Working the answers
- A
This concerns whether government can persuade people to become more reasoned. The conclusion starts with a different supposition: if most people do take that approach, government power should be less. The argument doesn't need an account of who persuaded them or whether government could do it alone.
- B
Government might limit some ways of pursuing personal welfare in order to protect other people. That possibility doesn't answer whether more reasoned behavior would reduce the need for its power. B concerns a possible cost of government action, while the missing connection concerns the harm reasoned people cause.
- CCorrect
This supplies the comparison the argument needs: reasoned people are less likely to injure others. Given the stated purpose of government, that gives the proposed reduction in power a basis. If reasoned people were just as likely—or more likely—to injure others, becoming more reasoned wouldn't reduce the problem the government is meant to address. Notice that “less likely” is enough; the answer doesn't promise perfect behavior.
- D
Eventual retaliation doesn't establish that people taking a reasoned approach cause less injury in the first place. Someone who harms others could later be harmed too, while the government's preventive role remained important. The argument doesn't require this promise of payback.
- E
This switches from causing injury to receiving injury. We need to know whether reasoned people are less likely to hurt someone else, not whether people interested in their own welfare are less likely to be hurt. It also replaces a reasoned approach with the amount of interest in self-interest. Neither change supplies the missing connection.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.