QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen
CONCLUSION: It is rare for government intrusion to decrease over time in a democracy.
REASONING: Assistance ➞ money ➞ taxes ➞ intrusion
Voters vote for candidates who promise assistance.
ANALYSIS: The stimulus sets up a clear chain running from assistance to intrusion. There’s only one problem: we don’t know if politicians actually do fulfill their promises of assistance.
The LSAT makes a strict separation between belief/promises, and fact. It’s possible that politicians promise insistence, but then don’t deliver it. If they don’t deliver, then we may not end up with taxes and intrusion.
- CORRECT. If this is true, then those politicians will offer assistance, and that will lead to taxes and intrusion.
- This would weaken the argument. The author is assuming that politicians do do what they promise.
- Assistance doesn’t cost money because the people’s problems are financial. Assistance costs money because any government program requires spending.
i.e. Sickness isn’t a financial problem. Nonetheless, solving someone’s health problem requires paying doctors, which requires money, etc.
- It doesn’t matter what happens in non-democracies. This stimulus is only about democracies.
- It doesn’t matter what politicians believe ought to be done. We only care whether politicians do offer the assistance they promise.
i.e. imagine a politician has promised assistance, and delivered assistance. Does it matter whether they believe assistance is wrong, and only promised it to get elected? No. The point is that they did offer assistance.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly