Bunuel wrote:
Some argue that because attaining governmental power in democracies requires building majority coalitions, it is a necessary evil that policymakers do not adhere rigorously to principle when dealing with important issues, but rather shift policies as they try to please different constituents at different times. But it is precisely this behavior that allows a democracy to adapt more easily to serve public interests, and thus it is more a benefit than an evil.
Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
(A) Government policymakers cannot retain power if they ignore any of the various factions of their original winning coalition.
(B) Democracies are more likely than nondemocratic forms of government to have policymakers who understand the complexity of governmental issues.
(C) In the formulation of government policy, the advantage conferred by adaptability to diverse or fluctuating public interests outweighs the detriment associated with a lack of strict fidelity to principle.
(D) In dealing with an important issue, policymakers in a democracy appeal to a principle in dealing with an issue only when that principle has majority support.
(E) Democracies appear to be more flexible than nondemocratic forms of government, but are not actually so.
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
Hmm. I don’t react strongly to this one. That’s usually a problem. If we can get indignant, we have a better chance of answering. Let’s see if rearranging it helps.
The logic seems to be, “Policymakers need to shift policies to build majorities, and this behavior of shifting policies allows a democracy to adapt more easily to serve public interests. Therefore people who say policymakers shifting policies is evil are wrong.”
Okay, I think I get it now. After rearranging the argument, my objection is this: “Dude, you are assuming that adapting to serve public interests is a good thing. But maybe public interests are themselves evil, or maybe public interests are OK, but rigorous adherence to principle
is the most important thing in the entire world, in which case we wouldn’t care how good public interests are, because it would be evil to do anything that subverts adherence to principle.”
Something like that, anyway. We’re asked to identify “an assumption required by the argument,” which means “necessary assumption.” I think we are probably on the right track with our objection immediately above. The answer is probably something like “public interest is more important than adherence to principle.” Let’s see:
A) Nah. The conclusion isn’t about what policymakers have to do to retain power. It’s about whether what they have to do is
good or
bad. This isn’t a missing piece of the argument.
B) Nah, it’s not about whether democracies promote, or don’t promote, understanding.
C) Yup. Lots of big words here, folks. I’m very sorry, but there’s nothing I can do to help with that. Start reading, a lot, and every single day. I don’t care what you read, but you must
read. It’s the only way to improve your vocabulary and reading comprehension. This answer choice translates into “public interest is more important than adherence to principle,” which matches my prediction above. If this isn’t true, then the argument is in really big trouble. That’s how we know that this is a necessary assumption of the argument. I am 99.99 percent certain that this will turn out to be the correct answer.
D) No. This just takes the terms from an argument and blends them up and pours them out into a bucket of nonsense.
E) It’s not about democracies vs. non-democracies.
Our answer is C, because it must be true in order for the argument to make sense. That’s the definition of a Necessary Assumption.