Q12 - Some argue that because

[willbrown275]

Hello Atlas Staff

Answer C seems to be a restatement of the argument, i.e. that the ends justifies the means (I'm paraphrasing, of course).

How is this an assumption - which I thought was supposed to be unspoken?

Is it because attaining governmental power and formulating governmental policy are 2 different things?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I can see why this answer choice feels like a statement made in the stimulus; especially since the the conclusion is simply that not adhering rigorously to principle is more a benefit than an evil. But it's actually a bridge spanning a gap in the argument. The argument doesn't actually discuss the detriment associated with a lack of strict fidelity to principle.

The evidence offered for the conclusion is that there are two competing modes of operating:

1. Shifting to please different constituents at different times.
2. Adhering rigorously to principle.

In order to say that not adhering rigorously to principle is more of a benefit, it must be assumed that the benefits of shifting to please different constituents at different times outweighs the detriment (if any) of not adhering rigorously to principle.

If you were to negate answer choice (C) and say that the advantages did not outweigh the detriment, the conclusion would be undermined.

Taking a quick look at the other answer choices

(A) is way too specific and is out of scope. The conclusion is not about retaining power.
(B) is out of scope. Nondemocratic forms of government are not relevant to the conclusion about democratic ones.
(D) is way too specific and undermines the conclusion that not adhering to principle is a benefit.
(E) undermines the conclusion that flexibility is an benefit.

Does that help clear this one up?

[Nina]

can we say that A is a premise-booster? since it sort of extends the first sentence in the argument that "attaining governmental power in democracies requires building majority coalitions".

Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hi Nina! Love that you're working on categorizing the incorrectness of wrong answers! In this case, I'd say no. The reason is that although answer choice (A) does relate to the first sentence, it does not relate to the evidence used to support the conclusion. Instead this is support for an opposing point (that the politicians' behavior is a necessary evil). While answer choice (A) does extend the first sentence, the first sentence is not actually support for the argument. So we might suggest that it's an opposing point premise booster, but not the argument's!

Keep up the good work!

[PhoebeL747]

I have a question regarding your explanation for answer (D):

"(D) is way too specific and undermines the conclusion that not adhering to principle is a benefit."

I don't get why (D) undermines the conclusion. It says the policy maker appeal to a principle only when it has majority support. Sounds like it strengthens the idea that the policy makers try to please constituents whenever they can-so it's basically like an apposing point premise booster. Am I wrong?