Logical reasoning PrepTest 116 · Section 3 · Question 12

Incorrect. First, the argument requires only that they don't ignore enough factions to lose power, which may be less than all of them. Second, the policymakers don't need to stick with all members of their original coalition—they could instead shift or rebuild a coalition with different members.

Incorrect. A comparison between nondemocratic governments is out of scope since the conclusion and premises are about a democratic government.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Some — Getting elected requires shifting policies to those people want instead of adhering to principle, which is a necessary evil.

Counterpoint — Shifting policies lets democracy adapt to serve the public, so it's more good than bad.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion here is comparative—it states that a feature" of democracy is "more a benefit than an evil." Such a comparison would require comparative premises.

However, we don't get any! Instead, we get only one pro and one con listed. On the plus side, politicians adopting popular positions makes it easier to serve the public. On the evil side, it means they aren't conforming to principles.

In order to reach the comparative conclusion, then, it must be established that the pro outweighs the con.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that the noted positive outweighs the noted negative, allowing for the conclusion that the benefits are larger than the "necessary evil." If adapting to public interests isn't outweighed by not following principles, then the argument falls apart. This answer is therefore correct.

Key Takeaway:
A comparative conclusion needs comparative premises, or individual premises that present equivalent information about two things to allow for the comparison. Lacking that, the assumption will provide it.

Incorrect. This answer conflates the pro and the con, so it's messing up the argument structure and thus isn't necessary for the conclusion to hold.

Incorrect. A comparison to nondemocratic forms of government is out of scope since neither the premises nor the conclusion are about alternative government forms.