QUESTION TEXT: Some argue that because attaining governmental power in…
QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption
CONCLUSION: The fact that political parties in democracies are unprincipled is a benefit, rather than a necessary evil.
REASONING: Shifting principles allows governments to more easily reflect public opinion; therefore shifting principles is good.
ANALYSIS: Regarding lack of principle, the stimulus lists a benefit but doesn’t address any potential disadvantages. We can’t say the conclusion is correct unless we know the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
___________
- It’s not clear why this matters. Even if policymakers could retain power by ignoring some or all of their coalition members, it doesn’t affect the argument that lack of principle is a benefit.
- The comparison to non-democratic policymakers is irrelevant, as this issue does not depend on them.
- CORRECT. This is a required assumption. If it’s false, then lack of principle outweighs any advantages gained from flexibility, and the argument falls apart. The argument says that lack of principle is a net benefit, and this lets us weigh the advantages and disadvantages.
- Since the argument claims that lack of principle is a net benefit, it shouldn’t matter how often politicians appeal to principle.
- As in B, the comparison to non-democratic governments is irrelevant. The conclusion deals with an issue internal to democratic systems.
Recap: The question begins with “Some argue that because attaining governmental power in”. It is a Necessary Assumption question. Learn more about LSAT Necessary questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.
Leave a Reply