Logical reasoning PrepTest 119 · Section 4 · Question 16

Incorrect. First, the stimulus doesn't discuss those who do have a hand in crafting policies. Second, the stimulus doesn't discuss acting rationally. This answer is therefore out of scope for two reasons.

Incorrect. A free press not being better able to convey the purpose of government policies to the citizens doesn't undermine the argument—a controlled press could still be bad at doing so even if they're as good or better at it than a free press.

Incorrect. This answer is too strong. The conclusion is about countries being more "prone" to civil disorder, which can be true even if security forces are fighting such disorder. Someone can be prone to a disease without having that disease!

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Country without elections or free press - Citizens are controlled by policies they have no input into
People who don't understand restrictions on them tend to engage in civil disorder
Therefore - Countries without elections/free press tend to have civil disorder

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions frequently deal with conditional logic, and the correct answer highlights a jump in the logic. This argument doesn't have conditional logic in it (it talks about what has a greater tendency of happening, and what is prone to happening, which is less than certain). However, it's similar to arguments featuring conditional logic in that the concepts in it repeat, thus forming a type of "chain" that we can follow through the argument.

We can't diagram this out as we would with a conditional, but we can see which ideas are related to each other, and which ideas have a missing link. To do so, we should focus on the conclusion and trace the connections those ideas have in the premises.

The conclusion starts off by talking about countries without elections or a free press. These countries are establishing, in the premises, as having citizens that don't have input into the policies that rule their lives. It doesn't say anything about citizens that lack this input, however.

The conclusion ends by talking about civil disorder. In the premises, it's established that people who don't understand the laws placed on them tend to engage in civil disorder.

Since the concepts in the conclusion are both connected to certain groups of people, but those groups aren't shown to overlap, we should look for an answer that connects them—something that says those who don't have input into the policies that govern their lives don't understand those restrictions. And remember that the statements in the stimulus are about tendencies, so answers that are less than 100% certain are preferable to pure conditionals, since pure conditionals are likely overkill and thus not necessary.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes the connection that was missing from the argument, and the strength matches up with the argument ("tend not to" matching with "prone"/"greater tendency"). If people who don't participate in the formulation of policies do tend to understand the purpose of those policies, then the argument is missing a key connection and it falls apart.

Key Takeaway:
When a Strengthen with Necessary Premise question repeats concepts but doesn't use conditional language, still see if you can map out the connections and find a missing one. These questions frequently deal with such connections while not using conditional language, and the correct answer can usually be anticipated as that missing piece. Just remember that an argument that uses less-than-conditional language needs a weaker answer, as conditional language is usually stronger than needed to make the argument work!

Incorrect. What happens in other countries doesn't determine whether these specific countries are prone to civil disorder. If all countries are prone to civil disorder, then the countries without free elections/press would be prone to it, as well.