#21 - Political scientist: As a political system, democracy

[sotor26]

Hello,

Thank you so much! Now I see why that was the correct answer choice!

[Leela]

I knew the flaw was in the causal reasoning and quickly narrowed down to answer choices A and D as contenders. I didn't fully understand A and wasn't fully convinced by D at the time and guessed. I now understand why D is correct, but could someone please explain to me why A is incorrect?

[Brook Miscoski]

Leela,

The reason that (A) is wrong is that the author does not confuse necessary and sufficient conditions with each other, which is what (A) claims.

To understand, let's look at the argument.

2d sentence: Democracy isn't sufficient to obtain political freedom (because it can exist with oppression).
3d sentence: Democracy isn't necessary to obtain political freedom (because other governments can exist with political freedom).

1st sentence (conclusion): Democracy doesn't promote freedom.

The author hasn't confused necessary and sufficient with each other, the author has shown that democracy is neither necessary nor sufficient for political freedom--a process of elimination, not a confusion. The error the author is making is that democracy could still make political freedom more likely, and that's captured by answer choice (D).

[cinnamonpeeler]

To dig a bit deeper, this conclusion is causal. The central causal assumption made by stimulus authors on the LSAT is that there is one cause for each effect, and that the cause and effect are always perfectly related to each other. In that sense, the LSAT improperly treats causal reasoning much like conditional reasoning. This answer choice addresses that central causal reasoning flaw that often recurs in the Logical Reasoning section of the test. It says that the political scientist overlooks the possibility that democracy can be in a causal relationship with political freedom without the two also having a conditional relationship.

Can someone explain this explanation further? In particular, I don't understand the connection between the assumption made by the LSAT test makers (namely, that there is one cause for each effect) and the flaw in this question.

Is this question pointing out the flaw of the assumption made by the LSAT? Is it saying that it is flawed to assume (as all LSAT causal conclusions assume) that democracy is the only thing that can cause political freedom? That there are other things that could cause political freedom besides democracy?

I also don't understand how to decide whether to deal with this with conditional reasoning or causal reasoning or both.

Here is how I initially understood the stimulus: The speaker wants to conclude that democracy does not promote political freedom. This is an "anti-causal" conclusion that purports to show that x does not cause y. There are two groups of counterexamples cited. The first involves democracies that did not lead to political freedom. Here, the cause (i.e., democracy) occurs, but the effect (i.e., political freedom) does not occur. The second involves oppressive societies that have led to political freedom. Here, the cause (i.e., democracy) does not occur, and the effect (i.e., political freedom) still occurs. Both of these groups of cases undermine the causal claim that democracy leads to political freedom, so the speaker uses them to make his "anti-causal" argument.

However, the correct answer deals with conditional reasoning.

[Adam Tyson]

That' a perfect analysis, cinnamonpeeler, and it probably would have led to a prephrase like "fails to consider there could be multiple causes for freedom" and/or "fails to consider that one thing may cause another even if it does not always do so." Seeing a conditional answer may have been a bit surprising, but it shouldn't be, because every causal relationship does have an underlying conditional relationship. The authors have that extreme belief that we talked about in this thread, and that means they think a cause must be sufficient to bring about an effect - IF the cause occurs, THEN the effect must occur. It also means they believe in the Mistaken Reversal of that relationship - IF the effect occurs, THEN the cause must occur. Once we recognize that conditional framework that lies underneath every causal claim, it gets a lot easier to see why we could have a conditional answer to a question like this one. It's rare to see it, but it does work!

Also bear in mind that answer D does also have causal language in it - it's about democracy possibly causing freedom even though it doesn't always guarantee freedom, and even through freedom doesn't always guarantee democracy. That's like saying "it's okay that it doesn't ALWAYS cause it, and it's okay that other things might ALSO cause it."

This is an odd one, for sure, but add to your toolkit the idea that causal arguments do have underlying conditional assumptions, and that those conditional assumptions are flawed. That should help should you ever come across another hybrid stimulus or answer choice like you did here.

[gmsanch3]

Hello, I was stuck between A/B/D and ran out of time so I guessed B... I see why D is correct. However, is the reason A is wrong because the political scientist actually doesn’t confuse conditions necessary with sufficient conditions for political freedom?
I’m also having a hard time ruling out B... I’m thinking it could be the flaw that he fails to consider that political freedom could lead to democracy? Maybe I’ve been reading this one so much I’m now lost in my thought process. Please help

-Gina

[Robert Carroll]

Gina,

I think breaking down the argument will make it more clear why answer choice (D) is correct.

The author concludes that democracy does not promote freedom. The author points out two types of cases:

1. Democracies that are politically oppressive.

2. Non-democracies that are relatively free.

So we can say the following:

1. Because democracies have existed that are not very free at all, democracy is not sufficient for freedom.

2. Because non-democracies have existed that are rather free, the lack of democracy does not entail a lack of freedom. In other words, democracy is not necessary for freedom.

So the author is pointing out in the premises that democracy is not such a strong promoter of freedom that every democracy is free, nor is it such a such a strong promoter of freedom that it's the only system that can result in freedom. But the conclusion is saying that it doesn't promote political freedom at all! That's stronger than the premises, which only established that democracy is neither necessary nor sufficient for freedom.

So we can see that answer choice (D) is right, and the stimulus really doesn't have room for any more flaws! A stimulus can contain more than one flaw, but here, we evaluated every part of the stimulus to see why answer choice (D) was a flaw used by it. There isn't anything we haven't examined! So that's the only flaw. If you understand why answer choice (D) is right, there should be no need to look at any other answer!

Because the conclusion is not trying to affirm or deny sufficiency or necessity, answer choice (A) cannot be correct. The author can only "confuse" one thing for another when something IS one thing and the author mistakenly believes it's the other thing! But do we have conditions necessary for political freedom in the stimulus? Or conditions sufficient? No, so there can't be such a confusion.

The conclusion is about democracy not causing political freedom. The author is not committed to any ideas about whether political freedom could cause democracy, which is what answer choice (B) is about. So this can't be the flaw.

Robert Carroll

[gmsanch3]

Thank you Robert... this makes so much more sense.

[hinarizvi]

Like others, I missed the underlying conditional reasoning at play in the premises. I chose B, because I thought it would weaken the author's argument that says democracy does not promote political freedom, by offering reasoning that political freedom might instead cause democracy. Aside from this not being the flaw in the reasoning, is this also wrong because 1) although the author says democracy promotes freedom, they are not saying it causes freedom, and 2) it's essentially saying to the author "Maybe you are right, democracy doesn't promote political freedom. Maybe political freedom instead causes democracy" therefore either doing nothing to or strengthening the argument?

Additionally, how would you advise getting better at recognizing this type of "underlying" conditional reasoning where there are no indicators/explicit conditional language? This seemed more like causal reasoning to me - Can you help explain further why it is not?

[Adam Tyson]

When an author says that one thing does not cause another, hinarizvi, it doesn't hurt their argument to say that the causal relationship could be the other way around. That actually helps the argument! If I say that democracy doesn't promote freedom, and you say it's actually freedom that promotes democracy, you're agreeing with me. That's why B isn't a good description of the flaw. The author may not have considered that reversed relationship, but if they did consider it, they would say it supports their conclusion.

And "promotes" is what we sometimes call a "soft" causal word. That means it is a causal factor, even if it doesn't absolutely guarantee the effect will occur. So when someone says that something does not promote another, they are saying it has no causal impact at all. In other words, it does nothing.

See my earlier post in this thread about the implied conditional relationship built-in to causal arguments. You don't need conditional indicators to know that it's there; it's just the way most causal argument work. You won't often have to think of it in those terms, but if you come across an answer choice that uses that conditional language, it could still be an accurate description of the flaw.