Logical reasoning PrepTest 133 · Section 2 · Question 13

Incorrect. People's preferences aren't mentioned in the stimulus, so they're out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Philosophical opponents of democracy - The best and worst forms of government concentrate power in the few
Philosopher - They're right. Also, democracy is consistently mediocre, so it's better than rule by the few.

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen (Principle) questions as us to justify the judgment in the conclusion based on the details in the premises. Interestingly, there are two viewpoints, however, so we have to navigate that.

And there's an important consideration in this two-viewpoint argument—the Philosopher specifically notes that one view held by the opposing point is "rightly" believed—in other words, it's true. So while normally the opposing point wouldn't be a part of the author's argument, here, in accepting the opposing viewpoint's premise as true, it becomes a part of it.

So the Philosopher's argument has the following premises:
(1) Rule by the few leads to the best and the worst governments
(2) Democracy is consistently mediocre as a form of government

From that, she concludes that democracy is a better choice than rule by the few. In order to justify that comparative judgment, we need to know that what is established as true of democracy is more important in a form of government than what is true of rule by the few. In other words, we need the criteria for what makes up a "better" government.

Rule by the few is noted as leading to both the inherently best and inherently worst forms of government. The latter is more likely to justify going with democracy over rule by the few (after all, why would you want to avoid the best form of government?), so the principle should establish that the criteria for determining which of two governments is "better" must include avoiding the worst forms of government.

Answer Explanation:
This answer justifies the conclusion that a democracy is a better choice than rule by the few. Rule by the few includes both the best and worst forms of government. If it's more important to avoid the worst forms of government than it is to have a chance at the best, then a form of government that would preclude being the worst is better than a form of government that includes such a possibility. Ergo, this principle sets democracy up as better than rule by the few, despite the latter's inclusion of the best forms of government.

Key Takeaway:
Comparative conclusions—especially when the comparison is generic ("better")—need to establish criteria by which that conclusion can be made. If the premises don't establish the criteria, then the correct answer likely will.

Incorrect. The Philosopher notes that democracy consistently leads to mediocre, not good, government. It's also noted that rule by the few has a chance at being the best and the worst, but it doesn't state the relative likelihood of the two. Therefore, this principle wouldn't allow the conclusion to be drawn that democracy is better, as it's both mediocre, and rule by the few might more frequently lead to "on the whole good" government.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't allow us to determine which government is better since it doesn't set up criteria for that judgment to be made.

Incorrect. Popular preference is out of scope of this argument, and there are philosophical arguments to be made for both mentioned forms of government.