Logical reasoning PrepTest 133 · Section 2 · Question 2

Incorrect. The argument requires only that not everyone's rights are respected, not that the rights of the majority are violated.

Incorrect. The conclusion of the argument is that a government where everyone's rights are respected is impossible, so establishing something that would ensure this type of government would cut against that conclusion.

Incorrect. The argument requires that at least some laws can be misinterpreted in a way to allow unequal power to accrue to some, but it still works even if all laws can be misinterpreted in such a way. The important thing for the argument is that unequal power develops.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Government has laws that limit people, and some will abuse the system to get more power, so a government where everyone's rights are respected is impossible.

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions—especially those earlier in the section—tend to introduce new terms in the conclusion that need to be connected to the premises.

Here, the conclusion states that a government where everyone's rights are respected is impossible. A discussion of rights being equally respected is completely lacking from the premises, so the concepts in the premises will have to be connected to this concept.

What do the premises establish? They show that the government sets limits, which some people abuse, resulting in some people having more power than others. So government results in an unequal distribution of power, according to the premises.

The correct answer will have to address this gap between unequal power and the inability to ensure everyone's rights are respected.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the premises to the conclusion. All governments, according to the premises, result in unequal power developing. If that doesn't ensure someone's rights will be violated, then the argument falls apart. This answer establishes the missing link in the argument, so it's a necessary premise.

Key Takeaway:
For Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions, focus on new terms that show up in the conclusion. The author is likely jumping between two related terms, and so the correct answer will address that jump.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't discuss rights being violated, as the conclusion does, so it's not necessary to reach that conclusion.