Q16 - In countries where government officials

[rdown2b]

After reviewing the problem I understand its D but can someone disprove E for me? Cause E makes sense to me

[maryadkins]

The core is:

citizens have had no role in creating policies -->

citizens do not understand the purpose of policies (intermediate conclusion) -->

citizens are prone to civil disorder

(D) links understanding with creating.

The other four answer choices are out of scope, but this question is tough because they seem closely related. Focus on the core to define your scope.

(A) is wrong because rational behavior has nothing to do with this. Don’t confuse disobedient behavior with irrational behavior.
(B) is irrelevant. The press’s ability to convey information doesn't have anything to do with our core.
(C) is also out of scope. The ability to prevent civil disorder has nothing to do with whether citizens are prone to civil disorder.
(E) is likewise irrelevant. We don't care about countries that have free elections and free press--we're concerned with the countries that don't. Remember: the critical assumption links the pieces of the core.

[farhadshekib]

Also, if you re-read the last premise, it states: "when people do not understand the purpose of the restrictions placed on their behavior, they have a GREATER TENDENCY to engage in civil disorder as an expression of their frustration".

E) states that civil disorder does not generally occur in countries that have either free elections or a free press.

However, no where in the stimulus does it suggest that civil disorder ONLY occurs when people do not understand the purpose of the restrictions placed on their behavior.

Rather, there is a greater tendency for civil disorder to occur in such a situation.

So, the argument is not committed to assuming (E). For all we know, civil disorder may occur frequently in countries that have either free elections or a free press. But it occurs more frequently in countries where people do not understand the purpose of the restrictions placed on their behavior.

[griffin.811]

Mary (or others),

What triggered you to link the premises together the way you did? I read this as two separate premises leading to the same conclusion.

Did you get to answer choice D, then realize that the second premise (understanding...) was an IC?

I had to use PoE, to get to D, but I prefer not to answer questions this way if I can avoid it.

Thanks

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Premise: The lives of citizens are controlled by policies they have no role in creating in countries in which government officials are neither selected by free elections or open to criticisms by a free press
Intermediate conclusion: When people do not understand the purpose of the restrictions places on their behaviour they are prone to civil disorder.
Final conclusion: Such countries are prone to civil disorders

The gap here is between the premie and the intermediate conclusion. The author presumes that if one did not participate in creating a policy they do no understand it.

(A) This is just a relative statement about which group acts more rational, this is out of scope and not necessary. Rationality isn't even mentioned in the argument.
(B) Out of scope. The ability to conveying to citizens the purposes of government policy is not mentioned in the argument.
(C) Out of scope. The ability to prevent civil disorder is not mentioned in the argument.
(D) Bingo.
(E) We don't care about what occurs in countries that have free elections or free press, out of scope.

[renata.gomez]

I chose D but B was very tempting. I thought that it could be necessary because if the free press is not better able to covey the purpose of the government's policy (ie: purpose of restrictions on their behavior) then why would control in creating the rules matter? If the press controlled by the gov't is better able to explain the policy then civil disorder wouldn't occur.

Your understanding would be helpful as I see this is IN SCOPE.

Thank you!

[anurag111284]

I chose D but B was very tempting. I thought that it could be necessary because if the free press is not better able to covey the purpose of the government's policy (ie: purpose of restrictions on their behavior) then why would control in creating the rules matter? If the press controlled by the gov't is better able to explain the policy then civil disorder wouldn't occur.

Your understanding would be helpful as I see this is IN SCOPE.

Thank you!

B is only parlty in scope i.e. to the extent it talks about purpose. But it goes way out of scope when it talks about 'controlled by government.' We are given a government not open to criticism by press. That is not the same as a press 'controlled by government'.

[renata.gomez]

I chose D but B was very tempting. I thought that it could be necessary because if the free press is not better able to covey the purpose of the government's policy (ie: purpose of restrictions on their behavior) then why would control in creating the rules matter? If the press controlled by the gov't is better able to explain the policy then civil disorder wouldn't occur.

Your understanding would be helpful as I see this is IN SCOPE.

Thank you!

B is only parlty in scope i.e. to the extent it talks about purpose. But it goes way out of scope when it talks about 'controlled by government.' We are given a government not open to criticism by press. That is not the same as a press 'controlled by government'.

That helps a lot! Thank you!

[EmmaL473]

I still don't get why C is wrong or out of scope. Granted D is spot on, but wouldn't negating C also wreck the argument?

Negating C: Civil disorder CAN be prevented by security forces alone.
Lives of citizens are controlled by policies they had no role in creating --> Extreme security forces applied --> No more civil disorder.
OR:
People do not understand the purpose of restrictions --> Extreme security forces applied --> No more civil disorder.

What went wrong in my reasoning above?

[Laura Damone]

First, sorry for the delayed response here. Amidst all the chaos of the last week, this one slipped through the cracks.

Second, I think the issue is your breakdown of the argument itself. Here's the core:

Premises: In countries with 2 qualities (no free elections, no free press), citizens are controlled by policies they had no role in creating.

When people don't understand the purpose of the restrictions placed on their behavior, they have a greater tendency to engage in civil disorder.

Conclusion: Countries without free elections and free press are prone to civil disorder.

Gap in Reasoning: Term shift. Controlled by policies they hand no role in creating and Don't understand the purpose of restrictions placed on them aren't the same.

Predict an answer that addresses this gap. As you said, D does exactly that.

If you negate C, you get this: Civil disorder can be prevented by security forces alone. That doesn't mean that it always can. It just means that there exists the possibility that civil disorder can sometimes be prevented by security forces.

Whenever I negate an absolute like "cannot," I do so by thinking about the possibility of a single counterexample.

"There cannot be a low carb bread" negates to "There might be 1 low carb bread."
Negating it this way shows why answers with absolutes are so seldom correct. The possibility of a single counterexample is almost never enough to wreck the argument!

In the case of this question, the argument is about tendencies. Countries can still be prone to civil disorder, even if it's possible that disorder could be prevented by security forces in one instance.

I'd also like to point you to the phrase "security forces alone." That to me is a big red flag. We're never talking about security forces. Why would we have to assume that they, alone, cannot do something? Whenever I see words like "only" and "alone" on the LSAT, I always look a little closer. They will frequently make or break an answer.

Hope this helps!

[YufeiR103]

Here I am using a negation strategy:
civil disorder generally occur in countries that have either free elections or a free press.
This may looks weird, but it doesn't counter the statement. Yes, less free countries have greater tendency of disorder than free countries, but it can be true that both have tons of civil disorders and just have different levels.

[YufeiR103]

premise 1: no free elections & no free press------> controlled by policies they had no role in creating (no participation in their formulation)
premise 2: do not understand the purpose of restriction------> greater tendency of civil disorder

conclusion: such countries (no free elections & no free press)------> prone to civil disorder

invisible assumption: no participation in their formulation ------> do not understand the purpose of restriction

Let's negate D: people tend to understand the purpose of restriction even though they don't participate in their formulation. (the invisible assumption is negated)
then it doesn't fit to premise2, and there won't be greater tendency civil disorder