E44, S4, Q8 - Insurgent political parties

[gregory.mortenson]

Why is B correct? The question prompt mentions nothing about staying in power. Answer choice B seemed like it required too much of a leap based on the text alone.

I thought C was the better answer choice. It logically makes sense (I think) and requires less of a leap.

Can you explain why B is correct and C is wrong?

[dan]

Good question. This "fill in the blank" question is a form of inference question, so your approach is the right one. You want to choose the answer that requires the fewest assumptions. Or, as you put it, the one that makes the smallest leap in logic. Fill in the blanks are less "strict" though, so we need to also consider the relevance of the answer choice to the premise that supports it. Let's analyze this question:

Answer choices (A), (D) and (E) are clearly wrong because they are way too extreme.

(A) There's no way we can justify saying that "no" victorious insurgent party ever, ever manages to stay in power longer than the replaced party. It doesn't follow logically from the text.

(D) Always? How could we know this? We don't even have one example of a case when this happened, so how could we conclude that it always happens? This doesn't follow logically either.

(E) Impossible? So this is saying the different factions can NEVER come together? We have nothing to base this on; it does not follow logically.

So which one does follow logically?

The disagreements of the factions inevitably come forward once they win, so ____.

(B) they've got to work out their disagreements if they want to stay in power.
(C) they won't always push a new ideology once they win.

The question is, which one is a direct extension of the premise that's used to support it? The answer is (B). The disagreements will come forward (premise), so they've got to work out their disagreements (conclusion). In other words, the answer we choose must be directly related in some way to the part that supports it. Answer (C) has nothing to do with the fact that disagreements will surface.

The tricky part here is that we can't prove (B). We don't know for sure that they'll need to work out their disagreements. But, it is the only natural extension of the premise that precedes it.

So think of "fill in the blanks" in this way: what's the premise that directly supports the blank? Which answer choice is a direct extension (closely related) to the premise)?

Hope that helps.

dan

[gregory.mortenson]

Thanks, Dan. That makes sense, but I am going to play devil's advocate for a second....

The disagreements of the factions inevitably come forward once they win, so ____.

(B) they've got to work out their disagreements if they want to stay in power.
(C) they won't always push a new ideology once they win.

The question is, which one is a direct extension of the premise that's used to support it? The answer is (B). The disagreements will come forward (premise), so they've got to work out their disagreements (conclusion). In other words, the answer we choose must be directly related in some way to the part that supports it. Answer (C) has nothing to do with the fact that disagreements will surface.

I beg to differ with your last sentence. The factions put their differences aside for the campaign but once they win the disagreements come forward. These disagreements -- now at the forefront -- could feasibly prevent a new ideology from being pushed, since the factions will be fighting amongst themselves.

To be fair, correct answers on the LSAT are not always RIGHT, merely they are the best of the 5 given. I see why B is better than C, but I still think C has some validity (and I'm being stubborn about it!)

Thanks for your help Dan.

[dan]

Hey Greg. Thanks for pushing on this!

I agree. You could make the case that surfacing disagreements could possibly prevent them from coalescing around one new ideology. But notice that answer (C) never mentions disagreements. In other words, the relationship is created in your mind, not on the page.

Here's an example:

The manager of Dog Treats Dog Store quit, so ____.

(B) Dog Treats Dog Store will need to find a new manager if it wants to stay in business.
(C) Dog Treats Dog Store will lose money this quarter.

I can justify (C) if I'm creative enough. The store is experiencing turnover, and maybe I know from personal experience that turnover is bad for business. So turmoil hurts business, and when business is suffering, losses result. This seems plausible to me, but it's ALL assumption in my own mind. In fact, answer (C) doesn't even relate directly the fact that the manager quit.

We can't prove answer (B) either (we must assume that the store cannot operate without a manager), but notice that answer (B) is a direct extension of the supporting premise. "Manger quits" leads to "get new manager." It's much less of a leap of faith.

I'm not arguing that answer (C) in the original question is plausible, only that it's not the best answer. So in a way, I think we're in agreement.

Thanks for the questions, Greg. Keep them coming!

dan

[tian.z.zheng]

I believe the first half of the stimulus also plays a role in determining why B is better than C. The disagreement between the incumbent (or the dominant party) and the insurgent party contributed to the defeat of the dominant. Therefore, if the insurgent wants to stay in power, it must resolve the disagreement. It can be viewed as a causal relationship --> the disagreement caused the defeat. Therefore, no disagreement --> no defeat (stay in power).

Any thoughts?

Thanks

[dan]

That's a really interesting thought. Thanks, Tian. I do think there is a loose connection, but I'm not sure you can say that the dominant party loses because it has disagreements with the insurgent party. And even if we could conclude that, is that the same as having disagreements within your own party? If it said that the dominant party struggles to stay in power b/c of disagreements within its own party, I think it'd be a better case.

dan

[tian.z.zheng]

Ha..I see your point. Make sense. Thanks

[alex.chasan]

I agree with Dan's reasoning in the example about the Dog Treats Store, but I'm still having trouble (though I wish I weren't) accepting that (B) is the most logical completion of the original LSAT problem.

From the stimulus, we know for sure that the insurgent party (which had ignored their own internal disagreements up until their victory) WILL have their disagreements come forward upon their victory. [Corrections to this are welcome, though I think that's the jist of it].

If that's the case, then it seems like (C) is incredibly provable based on the premises. It begins, "the heretofore insurgent party" and my interpretation was that the "heretofore" refers to the party which has been ignoring its internal disagreements up until now.

If they can no longer ignore their internal disagreements, that must mean they have been victorious. Again, please correct my logic if there's an error but that seems like what they're saying.

If the insurgents are now victorious, and they can no longer ignore the fact that their views and aims differ "greatly" and likely "profoundly" based on the text, then it is far from guaranteed that they will even be able to produce an ideology to justify their policies. And, to me at least, it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that the degree of unity required to establish an ideology that justifies policy, is a necessary precondition to promulgating that policy.

Therefore, (C) appears to be an extremely safe/provable answer because it says they "will not always promulgate. . ." I WANT to believe that this is not as direct an extension of the premises as (B), but I just don't see it yet.

In order to accept (B), wouldn't you have to assume that addressing disagreements is a necessary precondition to stay in power? That seems like an ENORMOUS leap from the premises whereas (C) is much closer to the stimulus.

Again, I want to believe (B), but while I accept that it IS a logical completion of the argument, (C) still seems like the MOST logical completion.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Alex, let me give you my two cents...

I can follow your chain of reasoning but I think you rely too heavily on common sense, rather than containing yourself within the information presented. Everything you say sounds correct, but when I look at answer choice (C), I see a prediction about what may or may not happen in the future. It says that "insurgent parties will not always promulgate a new ideology." Does that have to be true? Is it possible that they might always promulgate a new ideology? Does the information provide any clues?

I know three things from the stimulus.

1. Insurgent parties are likely to be made up of factions who differ in views from each other as much as they do with a dominant party.
2. Insurgent parties will ignore these differences for the sake of defeating a dominant party.
3. After defeating a dominant party, insurgent parties will no longer be able to ignore these differences.

I just can't justify answer choice (C). It doesn't say anything about whether these insurgent parties will always or not always promulgate a new ideology. They might always do so, in spite of the factional differences.

Answer choice (B) isn't perfect, but I feel comfortable putting the three pieces together to arrive at its claim. If an insurgent party doesn't deal with its differences after winning, then those differences will open the door to future challenges by the recently ousted dominant party.

I'd be happy to debate this a bit further. Let me know if you disagree with anything I've suggested.

[alex.chasan]

Thanks for your help on this. . .I think I'm starting to see your point. The stimulus has a lot more to do with disagreements than it does with ideology. So if that's the case, then shouldn't the most logical completion of the argument be the answer choice that's really about disagreements?

Would that make sense if we appeal to parsimony? To make (C) a perfect logical completion, we would need an additional premise somewhere that talks about what is or isn't necessary in order to promulgate a new justificatory ideology, but we don't have that in the text.

On the other hand, while we can't be sure that addressing those disagreements is necessary for the new party to stay in power, that conclusion relates more to the text than any other answer choice.

Is that a reasonable way to think about it?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I think you're right on track.