Logical reasoning PrepTest 134 · Section 2 · Question 25

Incorrect. Since the conclusion is limited to applying to those legislators who do value democracy, the argument makes no assumption about how broad of a group that is.

Incorrect. The stimulus already establishes that people tend to accept as true the assumptions that appear to guide legislators, so expanding it to prominent/powerful people isn't necessary for the argument to work.

Incorrect. This answer establishes that legislators are, in fact, creating a problem for democracy in that they "often seem" (i.e., appear) to be guided by the idea that people can't take care of themselves. However, the conclusion isn't about something that is damaging democracy, but rather about what legislators should do to avoid damaging democracy, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. How common the situations are that the Sociologist recommends against banning is out of scope—the question is whether those things should be banned, not if they're frequently occurring.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Believing people can't take care of themselves hurts democracy, and what legislators appear to believe often becomes widely accepted. So legislators who like democracy shouldn't ban behavior that hurts only the person doing it.

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions always have a flaw, and that flaw is often an equivocation between a term in the premises and a related but distinct one in the conclusion. As such, it's often good practice to start with the conclusion and see what in it is discussed in the premises and what, if anything, isn't.

Here, the conclusion is about a wholly new idea—passing legislation that bans activities that harm only the person engaged in it. Think skydiving. There's no discussion of such legislation in the premises, so this legislation must play a role in the assumption being made.

However, there is another part of the conclusion that does show up in the premises—democracy. The implicit goal of the legislators to whom the conclusion is addressed is to preserve democracy, and the premises establish a threat to democracy. That threat is the widespread acceptance of the idea that people can't take care of themselves. So legislators that value democracy shouldn't do anything that promotes the widespread acceptance of that belief, and the assumptions that guide these legislators tend to become widespread.

Circling back around, we can support—based on the premises—the idea that legislators shouldn't promote any legislation that seems to be guided by an idea that people can't look after themselves. From that, it concludes that legislators shouldn't ban things that hurt only the person involved in the action. The correct answer, therefore, should bring these together:
A legislator who supports legislation banning behavior that hurts only the person involved seems to be guided by the idea that people can't look out for their own welfare.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the ideas that the argument needs to connect for the conclusion to hold. If a legislator supporting a bill that bans an activity that only hurts the person engaged in it appears to be assuming that people can't take care of themselves, then that view will often become widespread, and such widespread acceptance is damaging to democracy. Therefore, as the conclusion states, a legislator who values democracy shouldn't support such a bill. If a legislator supporting such a bill doesn't appear to be condoning that view, then there's no reason to recommend against such a bill.

Key Takeaway:
Some of these Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions have abstract and convoluted language to distract you from the basics—the argument chains together several ideas, and it's missing a link. Starting with the conclusion, you can see what ideas are in the premises, work through that chain, and see what the missing piece is.