#8 - Insurgent political parties that are profoundly

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Main Point. The correct answer choice is (B)

The stimulus consists of claims leading to an unstated conclusion, meant to fill in the blank. First, the
argument claims that dissatisfied insurgent (non-dominant) parties always produce factions that are as
much at odds with each other, in terms of views and aims, as they are with the dominant party. Second,
the argument claims that, although differences are set aside temporarily, they emerge after the insurgent
party claims victory.

We are asked in this case to choose the most logical completion of the argument. Since the victorious
party has factions that disagree with each other as much as they disagreed with the previously dominant
party, we have reason to believe that the newly victorious party might have to deal with the prospect of
continued insurgence.

Answer choice (A): This conclusion, that the newly victorious party’s tenure will not last as long as
that of the previously dominant party, is unwarranted, so this choice is wrong. The stimulus offers no
information concerning how long a fractured party would stay in power, and there is no reason to rule
out the possibility that the new dominant party might resolve its conflicts.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. Since some factions disagree with each other as
much as the previously dominant party, these disagreements would likely need to be addressed to guard
against continued insurgence.

Answer choice (C): The stimulus is based on the premise that factions will unite on a common, actual
cause, not the claim that those factions would form their own justificatory ideology.

Answer choice (D): It may be true that the defeated party often resists, but the author never discusses,
or even alludes to, what would happen to the previously dominant party. This answer cannot logically
complete the argument in the stimulus.

[g89]

I'm not sure why B, rather than C, is the correct answer, because the stimulus doesn't mention anything about the requirements for staying in power, and it makes sense that a political party characterized by disagreements wouldn't be able to formulate a cohesive ideology. Thanks!

[Nikki Siclunov]

The first sentence of the stimulus mentions that a dominant party has one singular justificatory ideology (with which insurgent parties are profoundly dissatisfied). It is reasonable to conclude that any insurgent party that wins an election must address the disagreements between its factions in order to stay in power. Indeed, a split party will have a difficult time staying in power, given that a dominant party's reign requires a particular justificatory ideology.

Whether the heretofore insurgent party will promulgate a new ideology to justify its own policies is completely unclear. Maybe insurgent parties always change their ideologies after they become victorious. Since the author never described how the ideology promulgated by a particular insurgent party changes once it becomes victorious, this answer choice is incorrect.

[Haleyeastham]

I understand how answer choice B would follow logic in the "real world" but how would I come to this answer choice regarding the information in the stimulus?

Thank you!

[jeff.wren]

Hi Haley,

Question #8 is a Main Point-Fill in the Blank question. The correct answer here is the one that best logically follows from the premises given.

The premises state that insurgent political parties produce factions that differ from each other as much as the dominant party that the insurgent parties wish to defeat. These factions ignore their differences while they have a common goal of defeating the dominant party, but as soon as that goal is accomplished, the factions will then resume their disagreements with each other.

Before reading the answers, it is a good idea to prephrase an answer. Because the disagreements will resume as soon as the dominant party is defeated, the newly victorious party has to contend with those problematic factions or it will likely be overthrown itself (starting the cycle all over).

Answer choice (B) most closely matches this prephrase and is correct. The other answers are either too extreme or discuss ideas that do not necessarily follow from the premises.

I hope this helps answer your question.

Best,
Jeff

[TurtleLawyer]

Hi.

There was no reasoning behind why Answer Choice (E) is wrong. Is it wrong on the basis that it is too strong in its wording?

[Ben DiFabbio]

Hi.

There was no reasoning behind why Answer Choice (E) is wrong. Is it wrong on the basis that it is too strong in its wording?

Hey there,

Answer choice (E) isn't supported by the stimulus because we don't have any information about how effective these factions are going to be at striking a compromise once they are in power. We also have no idea how much compromise would be necessary to keep the party in power.

You're right that the language is strong, but it also raises questions that are not addressed in the stimulus, so it can't follow logically. It's partially out of scope.

Hope that helps!

- Ben

[ianngct2]

While it might be apparently true at the time when the test is written, I really don't believe that answer B true (neither on principle nor in practice).

In principle:
1.) the statement never address the prerequisite of staying in power, even when it did say that the dominant party has one singular justificatory ideology.

- it never says that it has to be dominant to stay in power, If you win the house and the senate by 1 seat, you are in power, even if you lose popular vote by millions, if you win the electoral college by 1 vote, you are still in power (I know the statement didn't specify the US government but it's just an example), also coalition governments are the norm in Europe.

- Not trying to be obtuse, but a coup is also a way to stay in power too. Once you are in power, you are primed to do a self coup.

- I think it is easier to justify C because if the statement implies the lack of unifying ideology for the party in the long run, so it might suggests a governmental paralysis when they want to promulgate a new ideology.

In practice:

- The tories gone in power in 2008 with factions all over the place, they are more fractious every time an election is called (it started out with a coalition with the lib dems so they weren't even a dominant majority to start with, so being the dominant party is not a prerequisite to be in power to start with, and then there is UKIP and Brexit, and then May is worse in whipping the MPs so much so they got rid of her, and then Boris broke records in the number of MPs who stabbed his back resigning last year, and then the next one lasted 44 days, and somehow they are still in power).

- If you say that the tories are not an insurgent party (arguable, because of Brexit sentiment), the Italian government is even more fractious. Also, none of the biggest parties currently in France existed 10 years ago (insurgent), and Macron is still in power after an election.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi ianngct2,

First I would caution strongly against relying on real-world examples of specific information to guide you on this test. If you have specific knowledge that an average person on the street would be unlikely to have, the test is not likely to expect you to know it. Therefore, it won't rely on that information for a correct answer choice. The details of European politics are unlikely to be something that the test makers assume everyone knows.

We want to focus on the conclusion of the argument they give us, not necessarily the argument that would be accurate and reflective of the world as it is. Let's imagine the disagreement between the parties relates to pizza toppings. The dominant party is the pro-cheese party. All cheese, all the time. The insurgents are a mix of toppings-based parties. There's a pepperoni party, a peppers party, a broccoli party, and a mushroom party. While the cheese party is in power, the other parties band together in favor of toppings. Toppings galore!

So our insurgent toppings parties are profoundly dissatisfied with the majority cheese party. But their aims all differ as greatly from each other as from the cheese party. They all don't like that the cheese party is anti-topping. But there's no reason to think that the mushroom party would be any happier with a pepperoni reign. Per the stimulus, the parties ignore their differences for the sake of beating the big cheese. But after victory "their disagreements inevitably come forward."

The conclusion that they must address their agreements to stay in power flows directly from the premises that they have significant disagreements and those disagreements will become relevant. It is reasonable to draw a conclusion from those premises that the parties need to address their differences. We don't know about answer choice (C). We don't know how the party will rule, or what ideology will be once they rule. There's less information to support answer choice (C) than answer choice (B).

Hope that helps!