Logical reasoning PrepTest 120 · Section 4 · Question 20

Incorrect. This answer is too broad in talking about all current governments—the conclusion is about only "certain" governments.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't rely on a direct correlation between these elements—it could be that no matter how far along the transition is, a government needs to maintain the same restrictions on the capitalist economy, and then transition to a free-market capitalist economy to become a full democracy. Such specific relationships as this are rarely correct in this question type.

Incorrect. Economic stability and probabilities of different governments are completely out of scope of this argument.

Incorrect. Democracies require free markets, but there's no indication that other types of governments can't also have free markets. The stimulus also discusses only democracies and totalitarian regimes, so this answer is too broad in talking about all nondemocratic regimes.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Democracies require capitalism. Switching from totalitarianism to democracy requires some limits on capitalism. Therefore, current anticapitalist policies shouldn't necessarily be criticized.

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions frequently bring up new concepts in the conclusion of the argument that need to be connected to an idea in the premises. This question does bring up a new concept in the conclusion—bemoaning current policies—but this can actually be reframed to deal with the concepts in the premises. So we should start by doing that.

Here, the Banker concludes that people who are criticizing governments for anticapitalist measures are being hasty—in other words, the criticism isn't necessarily correct.

First, why would there be criticism? Because democracy requires capitalism, so the critics see anticapitalistic measures and think that they're bad as they are preventing or hurting democracy.

Second, why does the Banker think the criticism is hasty? Because such restrictions are required during a transition from a totalitarian government to a democratic one.

In other words, the Banker thinks that the criticism is hasty because there is a situation where such anticapitalistic measures are good for democracy. However, she never establishes that the governments being criticized in the conclusion fit into that situation—that they're totalitarian governments transitioning to democracy.

Since the Banker assumes that these governments fit that description, we should look for an answer stating it.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects our anticipation. In order for the criticism of certain governments to be hasty, it must be the case that the exception the Banker highlights applies to them. If they haven't been totalitarian in the recent past, then the exception doesn't apply, and the argument falls apart. That makes this a necessary premise.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever an argument refers back to concepts from the premises without explicitly stating them, substitute them in to get the true meaning of the conclusion. This is important in noting any jumps between the premises and conclusion.