PrepTest 114

Incorrect. The argument doesn't establish any conditions that are necessary for political freedom, nor any that are sufficient, so it can't confuse them!

Incorrect. This answer reverses the connection that the argument rules out—that democracy promotes political freedom. An argument that concludes one thing doesn't cause another doesn't fail to consider that the reverse may be true—in fact, the reverse being true would line up with that conclusion!

Incorrect. The historical examples show countries that are and aren't democracies with varying levels of political freedom. They are absolutely relevant to the argument being made.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Conclusion - Democracy doesn't promote political freedom
Examples:
(1) Democracies have sometimes resulted in oppressive societies (i.e., no political freedom)
(2) Despotisms/oligarchies have resulted in political freedom

Answer Anticipation:
This argument uses counterexamples to prove a point about the relationship between democracy and political freedom. Namely, it wants to show that democracy as a political system doesn't promote that freedom. Since it relies on the counterexamples to prove its point, we should focus on how they interact with that main point. There are two "sets" of counterexamples, so let's break them down one at a time.

The first set is made up of all the democracies that devolved into societies that had very little political freedom. This shows that, in a democracy, political freedom isn't guaranteed. In other words, democracy isn't sufficient to bring about political freedom. However, it doesn't establish that, overall, democracies do promote such freedom even if they don't guarantee it. Studying for the LSAT doesn't guarantee a good score, but it certainly promotes it!

The second set is made up of those societies that aren't democracies but still have a large amount of political freedom. This shows that a democracy isn't necessary to bring about political freedom, but that doesn't mean that it can't promote it. Similarly, studying for the LSAT isn't necessary for a good score (grumble . . . ), but it can certainly promote it.

In other words, the counterexamples show that democracy is neither sufficient nor necessary for political freedom, but that's not the same as showing that democracy can't promote political freedom.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights why the examples fail to prove the claim. The two examples show that democracy isn't always correlated with political freedom, and political freedom isn't always correlated with democracy. In other words, democracy is neither sufficient nor necessary for political freedom. This doesn't allow for the conclusion that it can't promote democracy to be reached, however.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument uses examples to back up the conclusion, check to see if they actually prove it! In general, counterexamples that don't represent all examples can only disprove that something always happens. Since this conclusion fell short of that, the counterexamples failed to establish that conclusion.

Incorrect. There's no indication that the historical cases cited aren't objectively viewed as conforming to the characterization made by the Political Scientist.