#16 - In countries where government officials are neither

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (D)

To quickly identify the assumptions upon which the argument depends, examine the logical coherence of its premises and the conclusion and isolate any gaps in reasoning that the author needs to overcome:

Premise (1): No free elections

+ People didn’t create the restrictions placed on them

No free press

Premise (2): Can’t understand the restrictions Civil disorder

Conclusion: No free elections

+ Civil disorder

No free press

By concluding that such countries (i.e. countries without free elections or free press) are prone to civil disorder, the author is making an implicit assumption that the two premises in her argument are logically connected. In other words, she is assuming that if people didn’t participate in creating the restrictions placed upon them, they have no understanding of these restrictions:

• Didn’t create the restrictions Can’t understand the restrictions

or the Contrapositive:

• Understand restrictions Create restrictions

Answer choice (D) is therefore correct.

Answer choice (A): Acting rationally is not an issue in this argument, and therefore the argument does not depend on assuming that people who have had a role in making the laws that govern them act more rationally than those who have not. Never introduce extraneous information to the answer of Assumption questions.

Answer choice (B): While this answer choice may strengthen the link between the two premises by suggesting that a press controlled by the government is less able to inform the people (and thus less able to help them understand the policies that govern them), such a comparison is not necessary for the conclusion to be true. Since the relative ability of the press to convey the purpose of government policy is irrelevant to the argument, this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): Even if civil disorder could be prevented by security forces alone, the conclusion that controlled press leads to civil disorder still stands. At issue here is not whether civil disorder can be prevented by force, but rather what types of societies are more prone to experience civil disorder. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. See discussion above.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice resembles a Mistaken Negation of the conclusion and is therefore not an assumption upon which the argument depends.

[a.lsat]

Hello PowerScore

I have just finished my first timed PT after reading al three bibles and the workbook, yet met some problem. Can you kindly help me with them?

==LR Section 1==

#16:
This question is a "Assumption Question" and the assumption negation technique should works here. However, I do met some difficulties in applying it to answer choice (D) and (E). Can you demonstrate how to apply the technique and how the correct answer attack the stimulus?

[Adam Tyson]

To negate D, I would try something like "people can still understand even when they don't participate". This negation attacks the argument by attacking a crucial premise of the argument, that people who don't participate don't understand, which results in frustration and then civil disorder. If they can understand despite a lack of participation, then the argument falls apart, and we no longer know why these societies are prone to civil disorder.

To negate E, I think we can just remove the word "not" and say "Civil disorder does generally occur in countries that have either free elections or a free press." That might also weaken the argument some - it looks an awful lot like Effect without Cause (there is civil disorder even when there is at least some participation), but it has a crucial failing - does civil disorder happen in countries that have BOTH of those freedoms, or only in countries that lack at least one? If Country X has a free press but no free elections, might they still lack some understanding, experience frustration, and then engage in civil disorder?

For that reason, the negation of D does more damage to the argument and thus proves that D is an assumption of the argument.

Negating an answer choice is sometimes very straightforward - just add or remove a negative like "not". Other times, you have to look at the real meaning of the sentence and then rearrange it to express the negation. Practice that over and over, and eventually it will become second nature.

Good luck!

[a.lsat]

Hi Adam

Thanks for the reply, but I think I have some further questions on this one.

To negate D, I would try something like "people can still understand even when they don't participate". This negation attacks the argument by attacking a crucial premise of the argument, that people who don't participate don't understand, which results in frustration and then civil disorder. If they can understand despite a lack of participation, then the argument falls apart, and we no longer know why these societies are prone to civil disorder.

This is how I approach answer choice (D):

The core logic in the stimulus is:
~Free election or ~Free press ~Understanding Civil disorder
or can be viewed as ~Participation ~Understanding Civil disorder

The agreement in answer choice (D) is:
Understanding Participation
To negate answer choice (D), we will have Understanding ~Participation
Whereas the contra positive of the stimulus is Understanding Participation
The negated (D) is inconsistent with the stimulus, thus the correct answer.

Is my inference correct?

--

To negate E, I think we can just remove the word "not" and say "Civil disorder does generally occur in countries that have either free elections or a free press." That might also weaken the argument some - it looks an awful lot like Effect without Cause (there is civil disorder even when there is at least some participation), but it has a crucial failing - does civil disorder happen in countries that have BOTH of those freedoms, or only in countries that lack at least one? If Country X has a free press but no free elections, might they still lack some understanding, experience frustration, and then engage in civil disorder?

Yet, this is how I approach answer choice (E):

The core logic in the stimulus is:
~Free election or ~Free press ~Understanding Civil disorder

The negated (E) would be "Civil disorder does generally occur in countries that have either free elections or a free press" or,
Civil disorder Free election or Free press

The contrapositive of negated (E) will be
~Free election and ~Free press ~Cicvil disorder
I find this inference also attacks the stimulus, thus should be a right answer!

As for the example of Country X (Free press; ~Free election),
I found no way the inference of negated (E), ~Free election and ~Free press ~Cicvil disorder, can be applied, since they're actually different situation.

--

Is there something I miss? Please help me out with this!

[Clay Cooper]

Hi a.lsat,

I think your analysis and understanding of D is good and will show D to be the right answer - that is, the most direct attack on the argument in the stimulus when negated - if we can correct a slight problem with your understanding of E.

E originally states that if a country has free press or free elections, civil disorder is unlikely. This statement, negated, becomes: even in countries with a free press or free elections, civil disorder still generally occurs. This might seem like an attack on the conclusion of the stimulus - that the citizenry's lack of understanding of policy leads to civil disorder - but in fact it is not a very strong attack on this conclusion, because civil disorder could result from any number of causes, including ones not related to a free press or free elections. With this possibility in mind, even adding a piece of evidence (negated E) that suggests that even countries with free press and/or elections experience civil disorder does nothing to directly undermine the authors reasoning that, in countries where such freedom of press and election are lacking, this lack is the cause of the civil disorder.

Thus, the negated version of D is a far more effective attack on the stimulus argument and D is the better answer.

Does this make a little more sense?