PrepTest 129

Incorrect. Don't throw this answer choice out based on the first half! While the relationships in the stimulus are based on countries with "fewer parties," that tells us something about countries with more parties, for the same reason that saying, "More money, more problems," lets us say that someone with less money must have fewer problems. However, the second half of this answer is out of scope in talking about parties with internal disagreements—we have no idea what the effect of that is, or how it factors into the stimulus, so we can rule this answer choice out based on that.

Incorrect. This answer ups the importance of the connection already drawn in the premises, but it doesn't add anything that gets us closer to the conclusion.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Multiparty democracies - The fewer parties, the more productive the legislature
The fewer parties, the more issues each takes a stand on
The more issues a party takes a stand on, the more they have to prioritize issues
The more the party has to prioritize issues, the more likely they are to compromise

Answer Anticipation:
This argument presents a whole chain of relationships between elements, so we can track them almost as if they were pure conditionals:
Fewer parties → More issues → More prioritization → More Compromise

And then we have the opening statement, which says:
Fewer parties → More productive legislature

Just based on how arguments that have chains like this work on the LSAT, we should determine that the opening line is the main point, and the rest of the argument—the chain—is attempting to build to it.

And while it starts building from the sufficient condition, it never quite makes it to the necessary condition. When that happens, the missing link between the end of the chain and the necessary condition of the conclusion tends to be the correct answer:
More compromise → More productive legislature

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the end of the chain in the premises to the conclusion. The premises let us conclude that the fewer the number of parties, the more compromise there will be. If more compromise means more productivity, then the conclusion holds. If more compromise doesn't mean more productivity, then the argument falls apart. This answer is therefore a necessary premise.

Key Takeaway:
If you notice that a stimulus seems to be chaining ideas together, even if they're not presented as conditionals, think about them as a chain. You won't be able to take the contrapositive of this chain, but you can still see how the argument links things up, and thus you should be able to notice any gaps in it.

Incorrect. Nondemocracies are out of scope of this argument, since both the premises and conclusion limit themselves to talking about democracies.

Incorrect. While compromise is a key part of this argument, that doesn't require that there's "never" complete agreement on a topic. This answer is too strong to be necessary, and it also fails to discuss legislative productivity.