Logical reasoning PrepTest 119 · Section 3 · Question 23

Incorrect. It's noted that one purpose was to silent dissenters, which is a mistake that has happened in the past, so other purposes are immaterial.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't apply in the present case where similar curtailments of freedom have led to authoritarianism.

Incorrect. The argument does take this into account when it states that these limitations have "tended to" promote authoritarianism. That less-than-absolute language allows for the possibility that sometimes it doesn't.

Incorrect. This argument is about a bad law, and whether that means the people who passed it are ignorant of history, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Recent law - Curb freedom of speech to shut down dissent
Common belief - Ignorant of history → Doomed to repeat it
History - Silencing dissenters tends to promote authoritarianism
Conclusion - If the common belief is true, then those who passed the law are ignorant of history

Answer Anticipation:
As with all arguments, it's important that we start with the conclusion here. The judgment that the Editorial makes on those who passed the recent law is the conclusion here. It starts with a qualification—that the common belief is true—and so the flaw in the argument isn't that it assumes what "has been said" is correct. The substance of the conclusion, however, is that a group must be ignorant of history.

Is there a premise that supports such a judgment? The common belief does mention being ignorant of history, but it brings up a consequence/necessary condition ("will") of being ignorant of history. While someone who is ignorant of history is doomed to repeat its mistakes, that doesn't mean that anyone who is repeating the mistakes of history is ignorant of that history. That's a reversal of the common belief!

Let's look for an answer that reflects this reversal. It treats a necessary condition as sufficient, so it's ignoring the possibility that there are other groups other than those ignorant of history that will also repeat its mistakes.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that there are other groups who will repeat history despite knowing those patterns. It's possible that those in charge are authoritarians, and they're intentionally setting the stage for their authoritarian regime to expand its power.

Key Takeaway:
When you're having trouble identifying the flaw in an argument, it can be helpful to start with the conclusion. Identify the key elements and see how they're supported in the premises. Often, by drilling down like this, you'll be able to identify a part of the conclusion that isn't established in the premises.