Logical reasoning PrepTest 109 · Section 1 · Question 19

Incorrect. A quick sketch of this conditional answer: not Comprehensive system of gen ed → not Demagogue gets public support. This answer very much is not assumed by the argument. The Historian assumes that a lack of a comprehensive general education system will allow for a demagogue to potentially gain power, not guarantee they can't.

Incorrect. The Historian says that literacy informs "more people" of injustices but there could still be general awareness of injustices without literacy. Maybe literacy increases awareness from 53% to 77%. Or maybe without literacy people are generally aware that society is unjust but literacy allows them to know what the specific injustices are.

Incorrect. This answer is too strong in applying to all education systems, and in stating that they will "preserve" a benign regime's authority. When the stimulus says "before any" comprehensive system develops it's not bringing up a trait of each potential system—it's just saying that no system is developed. And the argument speaks in tendencies so there's no support for a claim that such a system will invariably result ("preserve") in the benign regime maintaining power.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Literacy has two effects — 1) Informs people of injustices; and 2) Allows them to tell reformers from opportunists in the right circumstances
Literacy spreads before a general education system develops
Literacy without education can lead to people following demagogues
Therefore — "Good" regimes that push for more literacy might end up toppling themselves

Answer Anticipation:
There's a lot in this argument so we should start where we always start when arguments get complicated—the conclusion.

Here the last line is the conclusion ("Consequently"). It brings up literacy and being toppled so we should check the premises to see how those ideas connect to what is established there.

The argument does speak about literacy quite extensively. It first establishes that literacy informs people of injustices but it never establishes anything that suggests this might lead to the regime being toppled so this seems like a dead end. It second establishes that "in the right circumstances" it can help people tell true reformers from opportunists. What are those circumstances? When literacy is matched with a comprehensive system of general education (which comes after literacy spreads).

Why does it believe that these are the circumstances that allow literate people to tell reformers from opportunists? It doesn't say! This is therefore an assumption of the argument—that general education allows people to distinguish between reformers and as the stimulus will go on to call them clever demagogues calling for change.

So ignoring that assumption for a second the argument has established that spreading literacy can (when not matched with education) lead to clever demagogues gaining the support of the people. Does this connect to the conclusion? Sure—a demagogue that gets the people behind them certainly could topple a regime and that's all the conclusion says—spreading literacy "may" result in the regime being toppled.

Since there's only one gap in this argument it should show up as the correct answer. Let's find something stating that a literate population lacking education can't tell a reformer from a demagogue and may fall in line with the latter.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the gap between the first statement and the second. If a lack of a general education doesn't affect people's ability to tell the difference between legitimate (true reformers) and illegitimate (mere opportunists/clever demagogues) calls for reform then literacy doesn't require education to protect the populace and government from these demagogues and the argument falls apart. Literacy wouldn't lead to the regimes potentially being toppled through any established mechanism. This answer is required for the argument to hold together so it's correct.

Key Takeaway:
This is a tough one! It can be really hard to see the gap in the reasoning. However working from the terms in the conclusion can be key to cutting through on a question like this. By tracking the concepts in the conclusion through the premises we found what connection was missing and were able to use that to get to the correct answer.

Also for Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions pay close attention to the strength of the conclusion. In general the correct answer won't be stronger than that conclusion. Since this conclusion was very weak ("may") we needed an equally weak answer ("affects" could have a marginal impact so it doesn't commit to much and is thus weak).

Incorrect. This answer is too strong. The conclusion states that pushes for literacy without establishing a general education system "may" result in the regime being toppled not that it will always be toppled by a clever demagogue.