The function of government is to satisfy the genuine wants of the mass

Govt should fulfil public's genuine needs - by listening to all-so freedom of speech is essential to run a healthy state


(A) People most often do not know what they genuinely want. - Then how people will convey their needs to govt, it is not possible only by freedom of speech, Govt definitely finds a way to make people understand their needs first...undermining the conclusion
(B) Freedom of speech tends ultimately to undermine social order, and social order is a prerequisite for satisfying the wants of the masses......social order required to satisfy wants..FOS undermines social order ..THUS undermines the conclusion
(C) The proper function of government is not to satisfy wants, but to provide equality of opportunity.....FOS means to provide equal opportunity to all to speak whatever they want..thus supporting our conclusion..CORRECT
(D) Freedom of speech is not sufficient for satisfying the wants of the masses: social order is necessary as well....directly undermines the conclusion
(E) Rulers already know what the people want....So Govt doesn't need FOS to know what people wants thus FOS is not essential


Please give KUDOS if you find it helpful

Bunuel please explain, why D is wrong, and why C is correct even when it directly and clearly contradicts the function of the government that is mentioned in the statement.

Freedom of speech is not sufficient for satisfying the wants of the masses
It means it is not the only condition for satisfying the wants of the masses. So, it does not undermine the conclusion.
I would go with option D.

Conclusion is Freedom of speech is absolutely necessary for a healthy state.

D is telling Freedom of speech is not sufficient to satisfy masses wants which is govt's responsibility....Then how is it not undermining the conclusion???

D weakens the conclusion .... As it states that there is one more creteria exist....not the freedom of speech...also they use necessary to point out that

Posted from my mobile device

even if there is one more criteria , the conclusion did not say that freedom of speech is the one and only criteria all it said that it's necessary , and D doesn't undermine that ,
Dear Bunuel
can you explain why D is wrong ?
Thanks

The function of government is to satisfy the genuine wants of the masses, and government cannot satisfy those wants unless it is informed about what those wants are. Freedom of speech ensures that such information will reach the ears of government officials. Therefore, freedom of speech is indispensable for a healthy state.

Which one of the following, if true, would NOT undermine the conclusion of the argument?

(A) People most often do not know what they genuinely want.
(B) Freedom of speech tends ultimately to undermine social order, and social order is a prerequisite for satisfying the wants of the masses.
(C) The proper function of government is not to satisfy wants, but to provide equality of opportunity.
(D) Freedom of speech is not sufficient for satisfying the wants of the masses: social order is necessary as well.
(E) Rulers already know what the people want.


Experts, please explain how is D incorrect.

We need to find an option that WOULD NOT UNDERMINE the conclusion.

Argument:
funct(govt) -> to satisfy what people want
fos -> enables govt to know what people want
Hence, fos is indispensable (ESSENTIAL) for a healthy state. <= CONCLUSION.

OPTIONS:
a. undermines by saying that fos is not doing the job correctly (hence, not essential)
b. undermines by saying that fos undermines another factor that helps in running a healthy state (hence, not essential)
c. undermines by saying that func(govt) is different than what is taken into account in the argument, and hence, fos is not essential.
d. This option says that fos is NOT SUFFICIENT and there is another factor also which is necessary. BUT IT DOES NOT MENTION THAT FOS IS NOT ESSENTIAL. There can be two essential factors.
e. undermines by saying that govt already know what people want and hence, fos is not required. (hence, not essential).

Hello, everyone. I am not surprised to see that another LSAT question is causing so much grief. If you are preparing for the GMAT™, the passage and question are different enough from what you can expect to see that practicing dedicated CR questions would probably prove much more useful. With that said, I do enjoy LSAT questions, and I would like to take the opportunity to explain why I believe (D) in particular fails as an answer to the question. Keep in mind, our goal is to NOT weaken the conclusion. In order to achieve that aim, we need not necessarily strengthen the conclusion, but we must stick to the exact argument presented, or any answer can start looking reasonable.


The passage opens with a claim, defining the function of government as the ability to satisfy the genuine wants of the masses; we then get a conditional in the latter half of the sentence: unless the government is informed about those wants, it cannot satisfy them.

The second line introduces freedom of speech as the vehicle between the wants of the masses and the ears of government officials.

The third line is the conclusion of the argument. Note that freedom of speech is considered indispensable for a healthy state. We will return to this notion later.

What do the answer choices have in store for us?


The linear reasoning behind this one is that if people cannot tell what they genuinely want, then the freedom of speech that ensures that such wants will fall upon the ears of the government may not serve its purpose after all. That would certainly weaken the argument that freedom of speech is indispensable for a healthy state. This is a red light answer, the opposite of what we want.


Like (A), this option gives us reason to doubt the pure merits of freedom of speech; if it undermines social order, and such order is necessary for the government to satisfy the wants of the masses, then the link in the chain is broken. Apparently, the state might not end up so healthy. Red light.


Unless you have practiced a lot of CR (or logical reasoning, in LSAT terms), this answer is likely to slide under the radar. But remember, we are looking for something that would NOT undermine the conclusion of the argument, and this new information takes a different turn altogether. That is, it does not pertain to freedom of speech at all, so we cannot pin down what effect it would have on the conclusion. In short, this answer choice seems to attack the passage as a whole, not the conclusion itself. This is just what we want. Green light.


The conclusion tells us that freedom of speech is, once again, indispensable for a healthy state; this answer choice tells us that freedom of speech is not sufficient on its own for satisfying the wants of the masses. A complementary role for freedom of speech goes against the linear logic of the passage: genuine wants of the people → freedom of speech → optimal governmental action. If we have a reason to doubt the middle link, just as we saw in (B), we cannot get behind such an answer choice. We need not read into the answer any further. Red light.


This sort of out-of-left-field consideration may give you pause, but what separates it from (C) is that this answer choice operates within the confines of the passage. Rulers are heads of state, and if this new information were true, then freedom of speech would seem much less integral to the process of the voice of the masses being heard. To reiterate, whereas (C) tosses out the base of the argument altogether by redefining the proper function of government, thereby deviating from the passage and conclusion, this choice merely gives us a different reason to doubt the power of the middle link in freedom of speech. In short, this is not what we want either. Red light.

I know it may seem confusing, but your goal with these types of questions is to follow the linear logic of the passage. Start to bring in associative thoughts or adopt what I call one-step-removed reasoning, and you will pursue dead ends almost every time you see a harder question.

I would be happy to discuss any issues or concerns further. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew
_________________

I too am in the -D- camp.


"The function of govt. is to satisfy the wants of the masses, and government cannot satisfy those wants unless it is informed about what those wants are."


IF - the govt. is NOT informed about wants of the masses

THEN - govt. can NOT satisfy its function of satisfying the wants of the masses.

(or: IF - the govt. IS able to satisfy its function of satisfying the wants of the masses ..........THEN - the govt. IS informed about the wants of the masses)


"Freedom of speech ensures that such information will reach the ears of government officials."

IF - we have freedom of speech

THEN - the govt. will be informed of the wants of the masses

Freedom of speech is one way to get the information of the wants of the masses, but it is not necessarily the only way based on the Facts presented. However, the author Concludes the following:


"Freedom of speech is indispensable for a healthy state."

In other words, the author is arguing freedom of speech is a NECESSARY condition for a "healthy state" (which is not necessarily the same as the function of government or the proper function of government) -----



SINCE Freedom of Speech is one way to ensure that ----->govt. officials are informed about the wants of the masses -----> which is necessary for the function of government(which is to satisfy the wants of the masses)


the Author CONCLUDES that For a "healthy state" to exist, freedom of speech is an indispensable, necessary pre-requisite.



Any answer choice that tends to undermine the argument that freedom of speech is a necessary pre-requisite for a "healthy state" will undermine the Conclusion of the Argument.

-A- If people most often do not know what they genuinely want, then this weakens the idea that freedom of speech is a necessary pre-requisite for a healthy state. After all, if the function of the government is to satisfy the GENUINE wants of the masses and government NEEDS to be informed of those wants before it can do it, how can the government discharge its function if people have no clue what they want?

-B- If freedom of speech undermines ANOTHER necessary pre-requisite for the govt. to fulfill its function of satisfying the wants of the masses, then this weakens the Conclusion that freedom of speech is a necessary pre-requisite for a "healthy state".


-C- "The proper function of govt. is not to satisfy wants, but to provide equality of opportunity."

Remember, the Conclusion is that "freedom of speech" is an indispensable pre-requisite for a "HEALTHY STATE."

We are not told in the passage that the "function of govt." (which is to satisfy the wants of the masses) necessarily equates to a "healthy state."

We are only told that:

Freedom of speech "ensures" (is one way definitely) to get the wants of the masses to the government officials ------>who need to be informed of these wants in order to satisfy the function of government


The connection b/w the function of government satisfying the genuine wants of the masses and what is necessary for a "healthy state" is not made explicit.

Therefore, if the proper function of the government is NOT to satisfy the wants (but instead to provide equality of opportunity) ----- the Conclusion that freedom of speech is an indispensable, necessary pre-requisite for a "healthy state" has less force.

C tends to weaken the Conclusion.


-D- "Freedom of speech is not sufficient for satisfying the wants of the masses: social order is necessary as well."

The argument's Conclusion is that freedom of speech is a necessary, pre-requisite for a healthy state. The author does not conclude that it is SUFFICIENT ALONE for a healthy state.

Bringing forth evidence that there is ANOTHER pre-requite ("social order") for achieving a "healthy state" does not really undermine the force of evidence that because "freedom of speech" ensures that the genuine wants get heard by the government in order to perform their function -----> it is a necessary pre-requisite for a healthy state.


The author does not make the final Conclusion that "freedom of speech" is both necessary and sufficient for a healthy state, only that it is necessary. There can be other necessary pre-requisites for the government to perform its proper function and it does NOT weaken the claim that "freedom of speech" is still a necessary pre-requisite.



-E- if Rulers (the government) already know what the people want, then it weakens the claim that freedom of speech is a necessary pre-requisite for a healthy state.


I have found several "1000 series questions" with inconsistencies such as this.


I could be completely wrong in my analysis, but the warning is still out there: be wary when it comes to 1000 series questions.

I would also love to know what other experts think about the 1000 series as a source. Since I've seen this warning several times in several other topic discussions, I tend to avoid the questions. For some reason this one still came up in my search results.

Lastly, thank you all for reminding me why I hate the LSAT.

All the best!

Hi Sir

I am not able to turn around option C and D. everytime i try i end up in marking D.

(C) The proper function of government is not to satisfy wants, but to provide equality of opportunity.
Freedom of speech become irrelevant for the discussion. Weaken the premises on which conclusion was defined.

(D) Freedom of speech is not sufficient for satisfying the wants of the masses: social order is necessary as well.
Even freedom of speech is there, it is not enough. But freedom of speech remains one of the crucial part. So whatever argument says about FOS , it is not undermined. It still remains essential part.

Please suggest sir .

I seem to be in the minority on this one, imSKR. I answered without knowing the OA, since I like to give each question an honest effort and then seek to trace my thought process, as opposed to looking for a way to justify what is marked as the correct answer. I cannot think of a better way to explain why I chose (C) than what I have already written above: a consideration that does not bring the conclusion into the picture in any way cannot strengthen or weaken that conclusion. It is a detached consideration at that point, and any argument that it will strengthen or weaken the given conclusion is conjecture.


These LSAT questions are nit-picky. Perhaps an official LSAT source is the only way we will get to the bottom of the issue. Whether I continue to be the Lone Ranger or others come to my aid, I welcome the input of other community members and Experts alike. For now, I would move on from this one if I were you.

- Andrew
_________________

AndrewN I’m more interested about your feelings on the 1000 series questions.

This isn’t the first time this issue has popped up with questions from this source.....

And admittedly, I could be completely wrong in my analysis. However, this has occurred in a few other questions from the 1000 series. After throwing down my analysis, I tried to check an official LSAT source and that was what the search engines returned.

Any thoughts?

I moved on yesterday.....I hate the LSAT lol 😂




Posted from my mobile device

Hello, Fdambro294. I appreciate your following up, and especially for having filled in the community on your findings in your earlier post. (Your analysis was well reasoned, too, and fun to read, even if you and I came to different conclusions.) To speak directly to your question, I have not practiced enough 1000 series questions to offer an informed opinion on whether this source is spurious or whether there are questions here or there, as is the case with many sources, that have questionable OAs. All I can say is that regardless of the source, I am not afraid to call a spade a spade when I see something that appears to be out of line. (I even requested Bunuel to change an OA after careful review of a question last week.) The goal is to help the community arrive at a better understanding of how to approach GMAT™ preparation. This question and other similar LSAT questions have allowed me to adopt the position that for most students undergoing GMAT™ prep, the LSAT is not as wonderful a source of questions as it may appear to be. Its questions tend to be based more on formal logic and, in many cases, do not reflect what one can expect to see on the GMAT™. There are hundreds if not thousands of official GMAT™ questions floating around for CR, so my thinking is that studying a somewhat smaller pool of questions and mastering them will better prepare someone for the GMAT™ than studying a larger pool that may consist of questions that are close enough but not quite the same and may lead to confusion and frustration. Understand, I am not bashing the LSAT, but these questions are unnecessary for mastery, even perfection, of GMAT™ CR questions.

- Andrew
_________________

Awesome to hear that! I am in 100% agreement with you and am ecstatic that someone proposes such a path.

I get the impression that GMAC wants you to use “common sense” logical connections rather than formal logic. The Power Score C.R. “Bible” (turned out to be such an appropriate name given how we all try to follow it to the letter) includes so much material on “If/Then” conditional analysis.

However, I’ve never used this “Sufficient/Necessary” Type analysis on a GMAT Official Question. I suppose understanding the necessary component when analyzing a Find the Assumption Question is helpful, particularly when there are answer choices that have the effect of strengthening the argument and nothing more.

Thanks for responding! I always read your posts and have several of them bookmarked.

I’m officially putting this bad boy to rest and keeping any reference to it out of my brain.

All the best!


P.S.
For curiosity’s sake, I’m going to pay attention to the 1000 Series questions to see whether what others say is accurate....




Posted from my mobile device

A few things here:

• what evidence is there that this is an official LSAT question? David from Veritas, who I'd trust about this type of thing, says here that he's quite sure it's not an actual LSAT question. It's very imprecise with language. Note the shift from "the function of government" to "a healthy state", for example -- why are we to assume these have anything to do with each other? Unfortunately that imprecision is not dispositive; a lot of LSAT questions are imprecise in that way (GMAT questions are the gold standard as far as precision in language is concerned). But it's also loose with logic. We're asked to assume answer C is true. But answer C contradicts a factual premise of the argument. That literally never happens on the GMAT -- you never weaken arguments by contradicting facts in the question stem. Facts are facts. We weaken arguments by finding logical flaws, faulty assumptions, etc. I don't have enough of an overview of all official LSAT questions to say if premises can ever be contradicted on that test (and I haven't looked at much LSAT material recently, and not with this issue in mind), but I'd be surprised if it happens on that test either, because if facts are not necessarily facts, no argument makes any sense.

• the 1000 Series is notorious for having errors, incorrect "OAs", etc. I agree with everything Stacey Koprince said in the BTG thread linked above. There are many better sources for questions, and I'd suggest using all of the many official sources now available before looking at anything else.

• As for this question, it seems to me a straight D. The argument says "free speech is necessary for a healthy state". Answer D says "social order is necessary too". Okay, great, so what? The argument never claimed "free speech is the only thing necessary". It just says free speech is one necessary thing. D doesn't undermine the argument at all (in logical jargon, the stem says free speech is necessary, not that free speech is sufficient, so the conclusion is not undermined if we learn free speech is not sufficient). It's a bit like if I made an argument explaining that vitamins do the good things X, Y and Z, and then concluded "vitamins are essential for good health." If someone says "exercise is also essential for good health", that person has not undermined my argument at all. I'm not saying the only thing you need is vitamins. So answer D does not undermine the argument here. If instead someone proves "vitamins do not do X, Y and Z", that clearly destroys the argument I'm making, because then I no longer have any evidence establishing that vitamins are good. That's why answer C undermines the argument here and is not the right answer (because we're trying *not* to undermine the argument). But on the GMAT, you never see answer choices like answer C here, so the question is irrelevant to GMAT test takers.

And I don't really follow this:



Every answer choice attacks the passage as a whole. Despite what the question says (as I said above, the language is really imprecise), we are trying to "undermine the conclusion" in isolation from everything else. If we were, we'd then ignore the entire passage besides "Freedom of speech is indispensable for a healthy state", and answer E, "Rulers know what people want", for example, doesn't have any direct bearing on that conclusion, independent of the argument in the passage. Answers A, B, C and E all undermine the logic or assumptions of the argument (or in the case of C, one of its factual premises), not the conclusion on its own.

We cross paths again, IanStewart. First off, I want to thank you for chiming in. I was hoping others would do so.
Pertaining to your bullet points, Ian, at least we agree on the first two and part of the third. I particularly enjoyed the last line: "But on the GMAT, you never see answer choices like answer C here, so the question is irrelevant to GMAT test takers."

I may not have explained myself well enough on (C), and I do not intend to disabuse you of your position. Nevertheless, I did not mean to suggest that we need to find an answer that attacks the passage as a whole, rather than the conclusion. However, an answer that attacks a premise that leads to a conclusion may not have any bearing on that conclusion. I could write a simpler (two-step) argument such as the following: The goal of candy companies is to maximize profits, but candy is bad for health. If an answer choice suddenly tells me that the goal of candy companies is not to maximize profits, but to conduct research for the next product, I would argue that such information does not pertain to or undermine the argument that candy is bad for health, any more than saying, The sky is blue.

In any case, I appreciate your post. I am here to learn, the same as everyone else. (And if I were not so poor, I would probably order those quant books you have written. I am driven by curiosity, and the quality of your posts gives me great confidence in those materials.)

- Andrew
_________________

The answer to this question should be D

I believe the OA needs to be corrected

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

Answer choice C contradicts the premise and weakens the argument. (So C cannot be the right answer. The answer has to be D)

Re contradicting the premises- as you said, that 'literally never happens on the GMAT'. But a veteran trainer once told me that the LSAT sometimes has such questions. I have never tried to confirm whether that's true

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

I think we all have one common agreement....


The question sucks.


And now after hearing it from two respected sources (definitely trust IanStewart ), I can confidently say that the 1000 series isn’t a good source.





Posted from my mobile device