Q13 - Political regimes

[mcrittell]

Wowzah! I couldn't work my way through the stim! I think I started getting bogged down around "they undermine" because I didn't know if the "they" referred to regimes or the forms of expression. I'm assuming (lol) the regimes because it later says in the sentence "proscribed expression"?

Help with this question! May-day, may-day! hahah

[giladedelman]

Yes, this is an ugly one! Battling through the stimulus is actually most of the work here, I think.

So we've got these regimes. What kind of regimes? Regimes "that routinely censor various forms of expression." Why do they censor such expression? Because according to the regimes, they -- that is, the forms of expression -- undermine public morality. That's their grounds, their justification, for censorship.

But that's not the premise. The premise tells us something more about these regimes: they inevitably try to expand proscribed (i.e., forbidden) categories in order to also censor any criticisms that they believe could threaten their power.

From this, the argument concludes that such regimes end up censoring writings that would reduce public passivity if they got popular.

Well, wait a minute. We know the regimes are trying to censor things that they think will undermine their power, but why would that lead them to censor writings that reduce public passivity? We have to assume that these regimes believe reduced public passivity to be a threat to their power. That's why (C) is correct.

(A) is incorrect because we don't care about the connection between widely held beliefs and popularity. The question is, would regimes try to censor this stuff?

(B) actually would work if instead of "not all" it said "some." I didn't even notice this at first, but another assumption here is that some censorial regimes are totalitarian regimes. But this leaves open the possibility that none are, so it doesn't help us.

(D) is super tempting, but this doesn't actually have to be true. Maybe current levels of public passivity are pretty high, and the regimes are just afraid of them getting even higher. Also, the issue is not what is required for the regimes to hang on to power, the issue is what the regimes perceive to be threats to their power.

(E) just comments on the relationship between censored items and items that would decrease passivity, but it doesn't help us figure out why the regimes would censor the stuff in the first place.

Does that clear this up for you?

[griffin.811]

Isn't the issue with D that is uses the word "usually"?

The answer choice claims that widespread public passivity is "usually" necessary... but maybe in this (and "many" other cases it is not).

If there are a million T regimes, and 100,000 do not require widespread public passivity, then public passivity is still "usually" needed (90% still need this) but 100,000 (many) do not.

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

I agree that this author doesn't need to assume anything about what 'usually' is the case.

Since the author is only trying to prove a claim about "many" regimes, the traits of those regimes can be in the majority or the minority without making any difference here.

But it is also valid to say that "what is actually needed to retain power" is irrelevant, since we're concerned with what is "perceived to threaten power".

And it's also valid to say that "widespread" passivity is too strong and thus unnecessary. The perceived threat is just "a reduction in passivity". It doesn't necessarily matter whether the baseline level of passivity is widespread or not.

So there are several ways to attack this answer. But I would add that on Necessary Assumption, strength of language is frequently my filter on a first pass.

Just glancing at this set of answers, I would immediately be extra suspicious of (A), (D), and (E) as soon as I see "unless", "usually" and "most", respectively, whereas I would initially be attracted to the soft language of "not all" and "can perceive" in (B) and (C).

[smsotolongo]

Just to be clear here. Is the conclusion the last sentence? I thought the conclusion was regimes expand censorship to include criticisms that these regimes perceive to threaten their power. I chose that as my conclusion because if these criticisms became widely influential they would reduce public passivity. As result the gap was, loss of passivity can threaten it's power, answer choice C. Did I invert premise and conclusion and if so why? Thanks.

[tommywallach]

Hey There,

Gilad actually said the conclusion/premise in his post up above!

-t

[mkd000]

Gilad's comment has raised a question in my mind.

"Not all" = anything but all (ie, if 100 people, this could mean 0-99). "Some" is at least 1 (ie, if 100 people, 1-100). But "some not" can = "not all" (could mean 0 or could mean up to 99, as "some not" could mean 1 not). Can "some" = "some not"? Is it that "some" can but is not necessarily equal to "some not"? And as such "some not" is neither an equivalent nor is it a logical opposite???

This question just came to mind, and it would be really helpful to get some feedback. Thanks

[ohthatpatrick]

I'm not 100% sure I understood your question.

Some = 1-100%
Not all= 0-99%

If you are told "Some A's are B's, you CANNOT also infer that "Some A's are NOT B's".

For example, it is true to say
"Some NFL players are men". Sure, ALL NFL players are men, but it's still true to say that at least one NFL player is male.

So obviously I'm not logically committing to the idea that "some NFL players are NOT men".

"Some are not" = "Not all"

In fact, I would recommend that EVERY time you see a "not all" claim, you mentally translate it into "some are not" language. That's what I do.

If I read "Not all lawyers are funny", it's too tempting for my brain to think that sentence gave me some evidence that "funny lawyers" exist.

In reality, that claim means "some lawyers are NOT funny", so it's only claiming the existence of "not-funny" people.

[SJK493]

(B) actually would work if instead of "not all" it said "some." I didn't even notice this at first, but another assumption here is that some censorial regimes are totalitarian regimes. But this leaves open the possibility that none are, so it doesn't help us.

So just to clarify, the answer (B) would have been correct if it said 'some political regimes that routinely censor forms of expression on the grounds that they erode public morality are totalitarian regimes' because we need to connect 'many totalitarian regimes' in the conclusion to 'political regimes' in the premise?

[LaurenL251]

Here is why I did not initially pick Answer Choice C.

I negated C to say: A totalitarian regime CANNOT perceive the loss of public passivity as a threat to its power”.
And I thought so? If it does not perceive it as a threat to its power, maybe it is censoring the writings that would reduce public passivity because the regime believes it will undermine public morality. It said in the first sentence that the regimes sometimes censor things because they believe it will undermine public morality.

I'm a little confused...or maybe actually I am a lot confused ha

Thanks in advance!