PrepTest 157, Section 3, Question 17
Anarchist: People can either fight for anarchy or(43 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AGovernments provide many(25 more words not shown)
- BBy asserting that(13 more words not shown)
- CThe argument infers(13 more words not shown)
- DThe argument offers(18 more words not shown)
- EThe argument sets(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why are those our only choices? Couldn't a government have limited powers without controlling every part of people's lives?
The anarchist starts with two extremes: fight for anarchy or tolerate totalitarian control. Even if we accept that totalitarianism makes life miserable, that doesn't eliminate the possibility of a government somewhere between those extremes.
I also want to hear about the costs of anarchy. Would people have reliable access to medical care? How would they protect themselves from violence or seek justice after a crime? These are questions, not facts we've established about every society without government. They show why freedom to pursue happiness doesn't automatically settle whether people will be happy—or whether happiness is the only thing they care about.
What we’re looking for
So we have more than one concern going into the flaw question: the missing middle option and the incomplete comparison of benefits and costs. An answer only needs to describe an actual mistake. Let's see which of those concerns the choices capture accurately.
Working the answers
- A
This starts near one of our concerns: government might provide benefits worth considering. But the second part says the argument doesn't attempt to explain why anarchy is desirable. It does attempt that explanation, by contrasting misery under totalitarianism with the freedom to pursue happiness under anarchy. We can think that reason is inadequate without saying no reason was attempted. That overstatement ruins the answer.
- B
The argument says people can tolerate totalitarian control, not that they should. It recommends fighting for anarchy instead. Describing an available action doesn't amount to recommending it, so the supposed contradiction isn't present.
- C
This gets the reasoning backward. The anarchist uses the objection to totalitarianism as a reason to fight for anarchy. C says the author starts with the recommendation to fight for anarchy and uses that to establish that totalitarianism is objectionable. Those are the same ideas in the wrong supporting order.
- D
The author does indicate a source of evidence: “history shows” the harmful effects of totalitarian control. We aren't given detailed historical examples, and we might want more support. But “offers no indication” is too strong. The argument explicitly appeals to history.
- ECorrect
This returns to the first objection: what about an alternative between the two extremes? The argument treats fighting for anarchy and tolerating totalitarian control as the only available political options. Rejecting oppressive government doesn't establish that anarchy is the answer if some more limited form of government is possible. We don't have to prove such a government perfect; we need to see that the argument hasn't ruled it out.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.