Q5 - Columnist: A democratic society

[tamwaiman]

I hesitated in making a decision between (A) and (C).
Why (A) is incorrect? Admittedly, (A) is more extreme, but if we negate it the description still weaken the stimulus.
Thanks.

[bbirdwell]

First of all, the answer is (D), not (C).

Secondly, here's our argument:

democratic society --> strong bonds of trust

bonds of trust --> participation in groups outside the family

Conclusion: reliance on movies/media has corrosive effect on democracy

(A) is not only more extreme, it simply doesn't need to be assumed in order for the argument to work. "Anyone" is equivalent to "everyone" on the LSAT. This is great example of a choice that would be correct on a Sufficient Assumption question (which of the following, if assumed...), but it is not a good answer on a Necessary Assumption question like we have here.

Negated, it does not weaken the reasoning. Here it is negated:
Not everyone who relies on media is unable to form bonds of trust.

This essentially means "Some people who rely on media can form bonds of trust." Ok. This alone does not affect the stimulus because we've no idea how many "some" is, for one thing. 2 people? 2 million?

It is not required by our conclusion that every single person who is reliant on media be unable to form trust. There can be exceptions without damaging the reasoning.

Look at (D) in comparison: "makes people generally less likely..." This must be true. It doesn't have to be everyone, like (A) says, but it needs to be most people (generally). Negated, this clearly damages the conclusion:
"Relying on media generally makes people MORE likely to participate in groups outside the family...."

[geverett]

One more thing I'd like to throw in, and see what you think Brian. The conclusion states that is has an "inherently corrosive effect on democracy." That does not necessarily mean that it (electronic media, movie, etc.) makes democracy impossible just that it harms democracy. It's a softer use of language and allows for a bit of ambiguity as to the degree of harm it does cause.
I like how in answer choice D there is a match in the choice/degree of language it uses when it states that "electronic media generally make people less likely to participate in groups outside of their families." Also language that allows for a degree of ambiguity (51%-100% chance they will not participate in groups outside the family, but within that range we are not sure).

Quick thought if the answer choice had said "Relying on movies & electronic media for entertainment generally makes citizens less likely to establish strong bonds of mutual trust." would it still be correct? Obviously both conditions necessarily follow from the existence of a democratic society so I think it would be correct, but I'm interested to hear other opinions.

[bbirdwell]

Great thoughts! I believe that asking questions like these, even if only to oneself, is a great way to practice for mastery.

if the answer choice had said "Relying on movies & electronic media for entertainment generally makes citizens less likely to establish strong bonds of mutual trust." would it still be correct?

So the pattern is something like this:

A --> B
B--> C
Therefore: D --> ~A

The correct answer in this problem basically said:
D --> ~C.

And what you are suggesting is:
D -->~B.

I think both are correct as necessary assumptions, though in situations like this, there is a strong, if not ubiquitous, tendency for the LSAT to utilize the linkage of A --> B --> C to use the furthest links (A and C) in the conclusion and correct answer.

[u2manish]

Dear bbirdwell,

Many thanks for the explanation. It was great and handy. You killed the question using the diagrams.

Is there a way here to FOLLOW someone around the blogs?
Best,
M

[bbirdwell]

Thanks! I'm glad you found it helpful.

I'm not sure whether there's a way to follow a poster. You can definitely click on the "profile" button at the bottom of a post, and from there, you should able to click on another link that allows you to view all of the user's previous posts...

[ilia.medovikov]

Hello Bbirdwell,

Thank you for clarifying this question. The fact that answer choice A is actually a sufficient assumption is something that I have overlooked when trying to examine this question and your analysis of this answer choice was of great help. The only point in your explanation I would question is the negation of answer choice D:
"Negated, this clearly damages the conclusion:
"Relying on media generally makes people MORE likely to participate in groups outside the family...." I believe that you negated answer choice D to its polar opposite but not to its logical opposite. The logical opposite negation would be: "Relying on media generally makes people no less likely to participate in groups outside the family." If my understanding of assumption questions is correct, negating to the logical opposite is the test that needs to be applied when examining answer choices.

When answer choice (D) is negated to its logical opposite, it allows for two possibilities: 1) relying on movies and electronic media has no effect on how likely people are to become involved with groups outside their families; or, as you suggested, 2) relying on movies and electronic media makes people more likely to be involved with groups outside their family. Both possibilities damage the author's argument.

[griffin3575]

This is a necessary assumption question, so we want to focus in on the core and look for any gaps in logic. The core is essentially:

Democratic society -->Citizens form bonds
+ --->M&EM corrosive
effect on Dem.
Bonds--> participation in CO, PP, and
GOF

Now, what are the gaps?
- The most obvious is the new idea of Movies and Electronic Media in the conclusion. This idea comes out of nowhere and is not mentioned in either premise. Because M&EM have a corrosive effect on Democracy, the author must assume that either a) M&EM prevents one from participating in CO, PP or groups OF, or b) that M&EM prevent citizens from forming bonds of mutual trust. This is because if either a) or b) is true, following the conditional logic chain, the effect is ~Democracy.

**note** I tend to think that because the conclusion is about a CORROSIVE effect on Democracy, the most likely assumption is part a), such that M&EM --> ~ participation in CO,PP,GOF-->~Bonds-->~ Democracy. Notice that by using a), we have NO participation in CO,PP,GOF, then NO bonds, then NO Democracy. As you can see, using assumption a) takes multiple steps to get to ~D, and thus a corrosive effect is possible because decreased participation can happen gradually. If we use assumption b), we have NO bonds, then NO Democracy. Here, the path of ~Democracy is much more instantaneous; all we have to do is get rid of bonds and Democracy is instantly ELIMINATED. This is not what the idea of corrosion is, which by definition is a gradual destruction. If we assume b) then the destruction is instant, not gradual like it would be by negating CO,PP or GOF farther down the chain. ***

The trickiest part about this question is that a lot of the answer choices seem to produce assumption a). However, you must read carefully and notice the subtle concept shifts in the answer choices that do not produce an assumption like a). Now, with assumption a) and b) in mind, let's move on to the answer choices.

(A) - Here, the word "Anyone" is too strong. We don't have to assume anyone who relies on M&EM is unable to form bonds, only that some are unable. This is a more than sufficient assumption. How do I know? Negate it: "Some people who rely on M&EM for entertainment ARE ABLE to form a strong bond of mutual trust... ." So you should be thinking, ok, so what if some people can form a strong bond even though the rely on M&EM, it leaves open the possibility that some people still CANNOT form a strong bond when they rely on M&EM. So the idea of a CORROSIVE effect on democracy is not weakened, because some people still not being able to form bonds is enough to produce a corrosive effect on Democracy: Some people relying on M&EM-->~some bonds--> corrosive effect on Democracy. The key is that when (A) is negated, it still leaves open the possibility that some people are unable to from a bond when they rely on M&EM, and thus the Conclusion is not weakened.

** In addition, (A) is similar to assumption b) we made above, and remember, we don't think ~bonds-->~D is a corrosive effect on democracy.**

(B) - "cannot usefully advance their goals" is OOS. Think about it, in order for Democracy to be corroded, we would have to prevent participation in civic organizations, such that ~ participation on CO--> ~bonds--> ~Democracy. Does not being able to advance their goals prevent people from participating in civic organizations? Who knows! For (B) to be correct, we would have to make a further assumption that if a CO cannot advance their goals, people cannot participate in a CO. We cannot make this kind of unwarranted assumption, therefore (B) is incorrect.

(C) - "Newspapers" , "strengthen Democracy", where did these ideas come from? The entire stimulus is about how MOVIES and ELECTRONIC MEDIA have a CORROSIVE(weakening) effect on democracy. Newspapers are not a form of electronic media, and only the idea of weakening Democracy is discussed in the stimulus, not strengthening Democracy. This is way OOS. Also, it doesn't touch the ideas in the core about CO, PP, or GOF, so we can eliminate (C) on that basis too.

(E) - Like (C), (E) would require us to make an additional assumption to be correct. Remember, we are looking for M&EM -->~ participation in groups outside the family. Just because people who rely on M&EM for entertainment are CLOSER to their families than those who do not does not necessarily imply that these people are less likely to participate in groups outside the family. Just because renaissance man Jimmy is extremely close with his family does not imply that Jimmy doesn't participate in a painting, singing, dancing, football or debate organization outside of the family! For (E) to be correct, we would have to assume that those who are close to their families are less likely to participate in groups outside of the family. This assumption is unwarranted, and thus (E) is incorrect.

(D) - Here is the assumption we anticipated in a) above! (D) states: rely on M&EM -->less likely toparticipate in GOF. Insert this assumption into our core (or its contrastive): Rely on M&EM--> ~participate in GOF -->~bonds--> ~Democracy. Bingo! Relying on M&EM as choice (D) states will indeed have a corrosive effect on Democracy by linking the ideas of M&EM to decreased participation in GOF. (D) perfectly matches our assumption in a) that relying on M&EM--> ~participation in GOF. Try negating (D): Relying on M&EM generally DOES NOT make people less likely to participate in GOF. This would destroy the argument neutralizing the corrosive effect M&EM have on Democracy. This is our answer!

[BarryM800]

The main difference between (A) and (D) is that (A) links up "reliance" and "NOT strong bond" directly, while (A) links up "reliance" and "NOT participation," which are next to each other on the logic chain. So can I eliminate (A) for skipping the middle guy, which is not necessary? But logically speaking, "reliance → NOT strong bond" and "reliance → NOT participation" are the same due to the premise that "NOT participation → NOT strong bond." Any thoughts? Thanks!

[Misti Duvall]

The main difference between (A) and (D) is that (A) links up "reliance" and "NOT strong bond" directly, while (A) links up "reliance" and "NOT participation," which are next to each other on the logic chain. So can I eliminate (A) for skipping the middle guy, which is not necessary? But logically speaking, "reliance → NOT strong bond" and "reliance → NOT participation" are the same due to the premise that "NOT participation → NOT strong bond." Any thoughts? Thanks!

Hmm, I think I get where you're going, but I also think it's much easier to use the negation test to distinguish between (A) and (D). See bbirdwell's post above (second post from the top) for a good breakdown.