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

[smile22]

I am having a bit of difficulty with arriving to the correct answer to this flaw question. In this stimulus, I know that it concludes that democracy does not promote political freedom.

When reading this stimulus again, it appears that the stimulus is making this claim based on two historical cases:

1.) A society where democracy existed and there was no political freedom;
2.) A society where there was no democracy but political freedom did exist

I think the key word in the conclusion is "promote". Democracy (among other factors) can promote political freedom even though in some societies they don't exist at the same time. So, in both examples mentioned above, democracy can still promote political freedom, but it just so happens that in example 1 other factors may have helped prevent political freedom from existing, and in example 2 oligarchies instead of a democracy existed and yet political freedom prevailed. At the end of the day though in both cases democracy still promotes political freedom. Is this what answer choice D is trying to say?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Smile,

Good question!

You are correct that the conclusion of the Political Scientist is that democracy does not promote freedom and he bases it on examples in which there was democracy without freedom and freedom without democracy. But neither of these scenarios really prove that democracy does not promote freedom.

The first case, having democracy without freedom, simply shows us that democracy is not sufficient for freedom. In other words, having a democracy does not guarantee freedom.

The second case, having freedom without democracy, shows us that democracy is not necessary for freedom. In other words, it is possible for freedom to exist even in non-democracies.

But just because democracy isn't sufficient enough to guarantee freedom or so necessary that freedom can't exist in its absence, doesn't mean that democracy doesn't promote or encourage freedom. Democracy could promote freedom, but if there are other factors working against freedom, democracy wouldn't be enough to guarantee freedom. And democracy could promote freedom but there may be other things that could promote freedom as well without democracy.

Based on the premises the author gives us, we really cannot know for sure whether or not democracy promotes freedom. Which is why the argument is flawed; we cannot conclude that democracy does NOT promote freedom because, despite these scenarios, it is still possible for democracy to promote freedom.

This brings us to answer choice (D): Essentially, the author has not considered that it is still possible for democracy to promote freedom, even if democracy alone is not sufficient or necessary to create freedom.

Hope that helps clarify things!

Best,
Kelsey

[smile22]

Thank you!

[est15]

I missed this question because I didn't even realize that there was conditional reasoning when I read the passage, and so I just didn't even consider the answer choices that had sufficient and necessary in them. I actually thought the flaw was that the political scientist was picking out special cases in history that happened to show democracy not promoting political freedom, and hence I picked C.

There weren't any standout sufficient or necessary terms (if, then, must, etc.). In this case, is it possible to know that conditional reasoning is at play without looking at the answer choices, and if so, how do we know that?

[Ron Gore]

Est,

Thanks for your question.

You say:

I didn't even realize that there was conditional reasoning when I read the passage,

You're right that there aren't any conditional terms in the stimulus. However, the political scientist assumes a conditional relationship in which if democracy were to promote political freedom, then it would always do so. Also, the political scientist assumes that if democracy promoted political freedom, then political freedom would never exist in the absence of democracy.

So, although there are no explicit conditional arguments in the stimulus, the political scientist's assumptions take the form of conditional rules.

Be careful about being too mechanical in these Flaw in the Reasoning questions. Don't assume that just because you didn't notice conditional reasoning in the stimulus that that conditionality cannot be the source of the logical flaw. While it is true that if the conclusion derives from explicit conditional language, then the correct answer choice will describe some flaw in conditional reasoning, it is not true that a stimulus without conditionality cannot be connected with a correct answer choice that describes conditional reasoning.

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.

Please let me know if I can help you further.

Thanks,

Ron

[eober]

Hi,

Is answer choice D saying that democracy promotes political freedom only because it is "democracy" but not because of its effects?

[Nicholas Bruno]

Hi,

This can definitely be a confusing problem! Basically, the author's flaw is saying that Democracy does not promote freedom because:

Some despotism political freedom
Some democracies political freedom

As you can see, none of this addresses the fact that democracy *can* promote freedom. The author incorrectly assumes that democracies *have to* lead to political freedom to promote political freedom. D captures this flaw by pointing out that democracy can be a factor that promotes freedom without being a sufficient cause or a necessary condition.

Does this make sense? I know its a more difficult question but I hope this helps!

[eober]

It makes sense thank you! It is just the way answer choice D was worded that threw me off. So it basically says that it doesn't depend on anything, but it CAN promote political freedom.

Thanks!

[sotor26]

Hello,

I took the Logical reasoning (part II) of the October 2002 and had some questions regarding some of the answers:

21. I was debating between answer choice A and D. I was wondering if someone can describe the reasoning behind the correct answer choice.



Thank you so much!!!

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

That's a great question. The author concludes that democracy does not promote political freedom. To support this notion, the author points out that there have been eventually oppressive democracies (and thus democracy is not sufficient to guarantee political freedom) and politically free oligarchies (thus political freedom does not require democracy).

But does that mean that democracy doesn't even promote political freedom? No, it doesn't mean that, and that is what answer choice (D) provides: The author doesn't consider the possibility that democracy can promote freedom, even if by itself it is not sufficient or necessary to political freedom.

That can be a tough one; I hope that's helpful—please let me know if this is clear—thanks!

Steve