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

[hinarizvi]

That's helpful, especially about the underlying conditionality in causal claims. Thank you!

[lsatlies]

A ridiculous question - C and D are essentially the exact same answer. D correctly claims that the historical analogues proving democracy is neither necessary nor sufficient for political freedom have no bearing on the conclusion that democracy does not produce political freedom. C correctly claims that these historical analogues are irrelevant to the claim that democracy does not produce political freedom. The test's logic is that these historical claims are actually relevant because they're "part of the larger body of historical evidence that one would look to when investigating the issue of whether democracy promotes political freedom." But the actual historical examples cited, the ones the author actually says, are wholly irrelevant to their claim that democracy produces political freedom, as answer D correctly notes. Ridiculous.

[Adam Tyson]

But the examples ARE relevant, lsatlies! That's what makes C a terrible answer. It's a lie! The examples are directly on point. The problem isn't that they aren't relevant, but that they aren't sufficient to prove the conclusion. Irrelevant means they have absolutely nothing to do with the conclusion and provide no evidence at all, and that's an extreme claim that is inaccurate in this case. There's a huge difference between "not enough to prove" and "not relevant." Here's an example:

A person has been accused of robbery. Is it relevant that they were in the vicinity of the crime at the time it took place? Absolutely! Is it relevant that footprints found at the scene of the crime match the shoes they were wearing when the police stopped them a short while later? You bet it is - the prosecutor will surely introduce that into evidence, and with good reason. But are either of these facts proof of guilt? No, you would need more to establish that they were, in fact, the perpetrator. The evidence is relevant, even though it is not sufficient.

So, if you are trying to prove that democracy does not promote political freedom, is it relevant that some democracies do not have political freedom? You bet, that's exactly what you'd want to say to support your point. And is it relevant that there is political freedom in non-democracies? Also yes, that would certainly help support the argument. But neither of those facts, alone or in combination, is enough to prove the conclusion. They are relevant, but not sufficient.

One last thing: don't fight against the answers, because that's a fight you cannot win. Instead, ask yourself why the authors of the test are convinced that the credited response is correct, and why they think the wrong answers are not. When you understand their way of thinking, you can better apply it to other questions, rather than applying your own way of thinking that may conflict with theirs.