#25 - Editorial: Any democratic society is endangered by

[appletree]

Hello, could someone please explain why choice A is incorrect?
The way I reasoned it was that we are told that class divisions strengthen divisive political factions (discord).
So then the discord would lead to even greater class divisions, which would then reinforce the discord (so the cycle continually reinforces itself).
Therefore, I thought this choice would strengthen the reasoning by showing why economic expansion is a good idea.

[Adam Tyson]

You're right that this answer sets up a vicious circle, appletree, with discord contributing to income inequity, which makes more discord, etc. But the problem with this answer is that it doesn't add anything to the conclusion that democracies should try to have constantly expanding economies, because it doesn't tell us that those policies will do anything to change the income inequities. What if a constant expansion of the economy only benefited the top 1%, and made income inequity even worse?

We need an answer that shows a connection between constant expansion and greater mobility between those economic strata. Answer A doesn't make that connection for us. The rich might just continue getting richer, continuing the cycle!

[ltowns1]

I circled (C) to begin with, but went with (E) instead. I felt (C) was too weak of an answer. I was looking for something more like it disproportionately impacts the lower class. I know that you should first and foremost look at the whether the reasoning is correct , but aside from that was the strength of the conclusion (“ should adopt policies”) a tip off that I should’ve accepted a weaker answer? Can u guys give any general tips on when it’s fine to accept a weaker answer on Strengthen answers?

[ashpine17]

What does proportionally mean in the context of the stimulus? Does it mean much greater or just greater?

[Beatrice Brown]

Hi LT! Thanks for your question, and happy to help

Answer choice (C) is not necessarily a weaker answer. What answer choice (C) does to strengthen the conclusion is it defends the conclusion against a possible objection to the argument. To see why, let's break down the argument.

The conclusion of the argument is that democratic societies should adopt policies that ensure constant economic expansion. The reason the author offers to support this conclusion is that economic expansion allows people to improve their economic standing. But what if the rich just get richer and those who are not rich do not really improve their economic standing? If that was the case, then the wide income gap that the author discusses as dangerous may get worse, meaning that democratic societies shouldn't adopt policies that ensure constant economic expansion because it may endanger society further.

Answer choice (C) tells us that economic expansion will actually help those at low income levels more so than those at other income levels. So the concern that we pointed out when examining the argument is not actually a concern! If economic expansion helps those at low income levels most with improving their economic standing, then economic expansion is a good thing for democratic societies because it protects against this class segmentation that has negative effects by preventing wide income gaps.

Therefore, answer choice (C) is the correct answer choice because it defends the argument against a potential weakness. Defending an argument against its weakness is one way to strengthen an argument. This sort of correct answer choice is not necessarily a weaker answer; it just strengthens the conclusion in a different way from an answer choice that actively strengthens the argument by adding a piece of information to support the reasoning. This type of answer choice is similar to Defender Assumption answer choices for Assumption questions; Defender Assumption answer choices aren't weaker than Supporter Assumption answer choices, but they just support the argument in a different way.

I hope this helps, and let me know if you have any other questions!

[Beatrice Brown]

Hi Ashpine! Happy to help with this

In answer choice (C), "proportionally greater increase in earnings for people at low income levels" means that economic expansion will lead to increases in earnings at all income levels, but those at low income levels will have a greater increase in earnings than other economic classes. In other words, everyone's earnings will benefit from economic expansion, but those at low income levels will benefit the most. This helps the argument since it ensures that the income gap won't widen from economic expansion; if those at low income levels have a proportionally greater increase in earnings compared to other groups, then this will help close the income gap even if everyone's earnings increase.

I hope this helps, and please let me know if you have any other questions!

[kristinajohnson@berkeley.edu]

Stimulus: “Editorial Any democratic society is endangered by segmentation into classes of widely differing incomes between which there is little mobility. Such class divisions strengthen divisive political factions that stand in the way of good governance. Since economic expansion gives people more opportunities to improve their economic standing, democratic societies should adopt policies that ensure constant economic expansion.”

Question Stem: “Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the reasoning in the editorial?”

Since the question stem is asking about strengthening the reasoning, I thought I should mostly be paying attention to, “Since economic expansion gives people more opportunities to improve their economic standing.” Is that correct?

(A) “Discord within a society tends to increase inequities in the distribution of wealth.”

Not even a contender since it’s not about the reasoning (not to mention it looks like a reversal of the logic used in the stimulus)

(B) “Political factions are sometimes willing to overlook their differences to back policies that are conducive to economic expansion.”

About the reasoning but “willing to overlook their differences to back policies” doesn’t seem very promising and doesn’t really agree with the spirit with the conclusion, “adopt policies that ensure constant economic expansion.” Is that why this answer is incorrect?

(C) “Economic expansion results in a proportionally greater increase in earnings for people at low income levels than for people at other income levels.”

About the reasoning, this answer is focused on the greatest economic expansion

(D) "Economic expansion cannot occur unless there is significant financial investment in the economy by people at the highest income levels."

Unless equation of (D): “Economic expansion can occur then there is significant financial investment in the economy by people at the highest income levels.”

About the reasoning but contingent on “significant financial investment in the economy by people at the highest income levels”

(E) "The presence of divisive political factions can be an obstacle to economic expansion."

About the reasoning but focused on what will hurt economic expansion

Does this process of elimination look okay?

I initially missed this question, and while I do see that (C) is focused on the greatest economic expansion I don’t see how that really strengthens “since economic expansion gives people more opportunities to improve their economic standing, democratic societies should adopt policies that ensure constant economic expansion.” The stimulus is saying “economic expansion gives people more opportunities” and the answer choice is like and the greatest economic expansion can be realized with people at low income levels.

Can someone explain how (C) strengthens, or is this a case where the correct answer is just neutral and doesn't suck as much as the other answer choices?

Thank you.