#11 - For democracy to survive, it is imperative that the

[irenadju]

Hello,

Can you please provide the complete explanation to #11 (LR section 2) of the October 1992 LSAT?

Thank you.

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for the question, irenadju. Our admins are working through all the tests to provide all those explanations, but it takes time to get to them all, and I think we are working our way backwards to the oldest tests, so that one will probably not be available for a while yet.

In the meanwhile, if you could give us some feedback on your analysis of the question, we would be happy to help review your process! What did you think was at issue in the question? What did you predict the right answer would say or do? When you reviewed the answer choices, how did you determine that a given answer was good or bad? Ultimately, which answer did you select, and why?

The more info you give us, the more helpful we can be in targeting where you may have gone off course and in confirming where you were on track. Send us a little more, and we'll be glad to help! Eventually one of our admins will post the "official" explanation, but we don't need to wait for that.

Looking forward to your reply soon!

[Mi Kal]

Hi,

I was wondering if you could explain why the answer is B and not E.

B mentions democracy being "threatened." The topic of democracy being "threatened" isn't even approached in the Stimulus and isn't "threatened" too strong of a word?

E seems to have a softer tone and seems like it follows logically.

Thanks.

Michael

[nicholaspavic]

Hi Mi Kal,

This is a great question about this stimulus. Note how in the first line, the passage addresses "the average citizen" (i.e. a whole lot of citizens). This broad language is far more inclusive than it is exclusive. Our author is making a bold claim about democracy's survival because of the average person's understanding of technical and scientific subjects.

On the other hand, Answer Option (E) speaks in terms of "some citizens." How many is some? Well, more than one. But beyond that, we know that "some citizens" is an inaccurate description of what is being argued in the stimulus (and therefore illogical). So (E) should be eliminated because it's language is too narrow to capture the broader language of "the average citizen" used in the stimulus.

And you are absolutely correct that the choice of words in Answer (B) of "threatened" is a very strong word. But it does not overstate the broad language used in the stimulus. Note that "survival" of democracy is even repeated in this answer. Thus (B) is the best choice here.

Thanks for the great question!

[Mi Kal]

Thanks Nicholas.

Now I see how "The survival of democracy" in answer B relates to "For democracy to survive" in the Stimulus. But, I think that "For democracy to survive" in the Stimulus also relates to "Democracy will survive" in answer E.

Nevertheless, I still can't see how "the average citizen" in the Stimulus is answered by B which doesn't put an amount on the answer leaving the possibility open to the fact that they could mean "all citizens." "All citizens" is way more than what I would think the "average citizen" is in terms of an argument. For that reason and the fact that the tone of the language is softer along with the answer addressing the "opinions on important scientific issues" is why I liked answer E.

E talks about "at least some citizens." Knowing that "some" is at least one and knowing that they are talking about "at least some" couldn't that be more relatable to the Stimulus?

Basically, I think B is just way over the top.

Thanks.

Michael

[andriana.caban]

Hi! I actually diagrammed this as a conditional statement so please let me know if there are any flaws in my set up and subsequent logic.

S = Survival of democracy
IO= Informed opinions about policy (and, in the third sentence, about scientific subjects)
A = Advancement of scientific knowledge

(1) S IO
(2) S IO (with the inclusion of scientific subjects)
(3) A IO (with the addition of "many important issues")

After diagramming these sentences out, I realized that the sentences mentioned above connect so that we get the following chain:

S IO A

If democracy survives, then citizens are able to develop informed decisions on many subjects (including scientific ones) and scientific knowledge does not advance. Ultimately, [b if democracy survives, scientific knowledge doesn't advance [/b]

We also get the following:

Contrapositive of chain: A IO S

If there is an advancement of scientific knowledge, then citizens cannot develop informed opinions and thus, democracy will survive.

Intuitively, I know the answer choice for a conditional statement with respect to MBT questions will either be a repeat of the chain or contrapositive.

Answer Choice(s):

(a) Out of scope. Author doesn't discuss what scientists "should do" with respect to educating the public.

(b) This is an inference of the contrapositive statement. When there is an advancement scientific knowledge, democracy is unlikely to survive. Thus, it is effected negatively or, "threatened" by scientific knowledge.

(c) Exaggerated. Author doesn't describe what every citizen has a duty to do. Likewise, the author states that advancement of scientific knowledge hurts democracy and doesn't mention citizens acquiring "scientific literacy".

(d) Exaggerated. Author doesn't discuss what the characteristics of a "most effective" democracy is. We just know that is required in order for a democracy to survive. If a democracy survives, we don't necessarily know if it can be labeled as most effective.

(e) Mistaken Reversal of (1) and (2). IO S

[James Finch]

Hi Andriana,

Looks good! Good job recognizing that this is a classic conditional MBT question, which means that it will either be a A C type conditional chain inference or a B A contrapositive answer. If there's no chain, it must be a contrapositive, as it is here.

[oommenj2]

Isn't "at least some" including the possibility of "All"- a statement as bold as the "average citizen" in the stimulus? This is why I picked E. Also, I felt like the advance of scientific knowledge was not threatening democracy, but instead the people not making informed decisions- all the more reason why I chose E.

[KelseyWoods]

Hi oommenj2!

I think it's probably easier to understand why answer choice (B) is correct and why answer choice (E) is incorrect if you look at this stimulus from a conditional reasoning perspective.

We can diagram the stimulus as follows:

SD = Survival of Democracy
CIOP = Avg citizen can develop informed opinions on policy issues
CIOS = Avg citizen can develop informed opinions on scientific subjects
SKA = Scientific knowledge advances

1st sentence:
SD CIOP
CIOP SD

2nd sentence:
CIOP CIOS
Contrapositive:
CIOS CIOP

3rd sentence:
SKA CIOS

Chain the 3rd sentence to the contrapositives of sentences 1 and 2:
SKA CIOS CIOP SD

That chain gives us answer choice (B), which is basically: SKA SD

Answer choice (E), however, is a Mistaken Reversal of the first 2 sentences: CIOS SD

In other words, we know that the average citizen being able to develop informed opinions on scientific subjects is necessary for the survival of democracy. So since the advancement of scientific knowledge makes it more difficult for the average citizen to develop informed opinions on scientific subjects, it threatens the survival of democracy (as in answer choice (B)). But having some citizens able to develop informed opinions on scientific subjects is not sufficient to guarantee the survival of democracy (as in answer choice (E)).

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[Rosepose24]

Hi,

As an additional perspective I simplified the stimulus in such a way:

(Sufficient) To get Democracy --> It's required/imperative (Necessary) av. citizens be able to make informed decisions

The rest of stimulus: we have been told a reason why citizen's are lacking / unable to keep up with particular knowledge (Scientific) that doesn't allow the Necessary above to occur. That reason = knowledge advancing too fast to absorb

Answer B: says that the sufficient is threatened (obstacled in some way from occurring) because the ^THAT reason. This MBT. it is nearly what the stimulus. That reason is stopping the necessary from occurring and if we don't fulfill the necessary the sufficient cannot occur if it wanted to. It follows from the stimulus that if the citizens can't keep up with the knowledge to make those decisions that democracy is at risk because what's REQUIRED for democracy might not occur.

why is E wrong:
its says that if we meet the necessary condition then we WILL meet the sufficient. This is not MBT... sure it could be true that the necessary occurs with the Sufficient but the necessary can also occur without the sufficient... it only allows democracy to be possible. We don't know which route things will unfold so we can't say based on the stimulus information that such answer choice MUST be true.

I think this a reiteration of the posts above but I thought it might be helpful.
Could someone confirm if this is the correct way to go about it as well or if not?
Thank you in advance.