GMAT Changed on April 16th - Read about the latest changes here

 It is currently 24 Apr 2018, 00:01

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Political scientist: As a political system

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

VP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1308
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Sep 2009, 12:30
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

46% (01:34) correct 54% (01:37) wrong based on 327 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

21. Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does not promote political freedom. There are historical examples of democracies that ultimately resulted in some of the most oppressive societies. Likewise, there have been enlightened despotisms and oligarchies that have provided a remarkable level of political freedom to their subjects.
The reasoning in the political scientist’s argument is flawed because it
(A) confuses the conditions necessary for political freedom with the conditions sufficient to bring it about
(B) fail to consider that a substantial increase in the level of political freedom might cause a society to become more democratic
(C) appeals to historical examples that are irrelevant to the causal claim being made
(D) overlooks the possibility that democracy promotes political freedom without being necessary or sufficient by itself to produce it
(E) bases its historical case on a personal point of view
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 640
Location: Cambridge, MA

Show Tags

23 Sep 2009, 15:40
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
To deal with a flaw question, the key is the same as for the majority of CR questions on the GMAT: figure out the flawed assumption by first IDing the author's conclusion and his evidence.

The author's conclusion is the Democracy doesn't help with political freedom. We know this is his conclusion because it is a broad principle, supported by specific examples.

He bases this on the fact that there exist some non-free democracies and some free dictatorships--we identify these as evidence because they take the form of specific cases.

So, we need to find the assumption--the unstated piece of evidence that bridges the gap between his supporting facts and his overall claim. In this case, we zero in on the major shift in scope between C and E: the conclusion concerns what 'promotes' freedom, while the evidence show democracy not guaranteeing freedom.

Thus, his assumption is that because democracy does not guarantee freedom, it does not promote freedom. Since this assumption is silly, we look for the answer the best explains why--choice D.
_________________

Eli Meyer
Kaplan Teacher
http://www.kaptest.com/GMAT

Prepare with Kaplan and save \$150 on a course!

Kaplan Reviews

Current Student
Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 182
Location: Ithaca, New York
Schools: Cornell University - The Johnson School

Show Tags

23 Sep 2009, 19:08
noboru wrote:
21. Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does not promote political freedom. There are historical examples of democracies that ultimately resulted in some of the most oppressive societies. Likewise, there have been enlightened despotisms and oligarchies that have provided a remarkable level of political freedom to their subjects.
The reasoning in the political scientist’s argument is flawed because it
(A) confuses the conditions necessary for political freedom with the conditions sufficient to bring it about
(B) fail to consider that a substantial increase in the level of political freedom might cause a society to become more democratic
(C) appeals to historical examples that are irrelevant to the causal claim being made
(D) overlooks the possibility that democracy promotes political freedom without being necessary or sufficient by itself to produce it
(E) bases its historical case on a personal point of view

I am probably wrong on this but I chose C.

The conclusion: democracy does not promote political freedom.

In order for the argument to be flawed it has to have evidence that does not substantiate the conclusion. Here the political scientist states historical examples democracies resulted in some of the most oppressive societies and enlightened despotisms and oligarchies provided a remarkable level of political freedom.

I say so what! to the phrase enlightened despotisms and oligarchies provided a remarkable level of political freedom. This is totally irrelevant to the argument of democracy not promoting political freedom. So the historical examples are irrelevant to the causal claim being made of democracy not promoting political freedom.
Intern
Joined: 01 Nov 2011
Posts: 4
Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does [#permalink]

Show Tags

15 May 2012, 11:47
Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does not promote political freedom. There are historical examples of democracies that ultimately resulted in some of the most oppressive societies. Likewise, there have been enlightened despotisms and oligarchies that have provided a remarkable level of political freedom to their subjects.
The reasoning in the political scientist’s argument is flawed because it
(A) confuses the conditions necessary for political freedom with the conditions sufficient to bring it about
(B) fail to consider that a substantial increase in the level of political freedom might cause a society to become more democratic
(C) appeals to historical examples that are irrelevant to the causal claim being made
(D) overlooks the possibility that democracy promotes political freedom without being necessary or sufficient by itself to produce it
(E) bases its historical case on a personal point of view

Can any one solve it...
Intern
Joined: 02 Apr 2012
Posts: 9
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 3.4
Re: Critical Reasoning - LSAT [#permalink]

Show Tags

15 May 2012, 15:59
1
KUDOS
this is definitely a tricky question bc of the convoluted language, but I would choose D
Intern
Joined: 01 Nov 2011
Posts: 4
Re: Critical Reasoning - LSAT [#permalink]

Show Tags

16 May 2012, 11:00
You are correct. OA is D. Can you explain.
Intern
Joined: 02 Apr 2012
Posts: 9
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 3.4
Re: Critical Reasoning - LSAT [#permalink]

Show Tags

16 May 2012, 11:50
1
KUDOS
Let's look at the argument.

Conclusion - "As a political system, democracy does not promote political freedom".
Evidence (1) - "There are historical examples of democracies that ultimately resulted in some of the most oppressive societies. "
Evidence (2) - "Likewise, there have been enlightened despotisms and oligarchies that have provided a remarkable level of political freedom to their subjects."

We are asked to determine where the argument is flawed. Basically, this question stem is asking you for an embedded assumption that makes the argument flawed.

Ultimately (D) says that it's possible that a democracy can promote freedom (which the political scientist says is not true) without being sufficient by itself to produce. In other words, there are other factors that lead to political freedom outside of a democracy. Exogenous factors, if you will.

An analogy. It is possible that getting a good night's sleep can help give you energy the next day, but it is not sufficient by itself to produce more energy. Eating a big breakfast, a healthy lunch, and snacks could be factors.

Make sense?
Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Posts: 61
GMAT Date: 11-02-2012

Show Tags

28 Aug 2012, 09:31
KapTeacherEli wrote:
To deal with a flaw question, the key is the same as for the majority of CR questions on the GMAT: figure out the flawed assumption by first IDing the author's conclusion and his evidence.

The author's conclusion is the Democracy doesn't help with political freedom. We know this is his conclusion because it is a broad principle, supported by specific examples.

He bases this on the fact that there exist some non-free democracies and some free dictatorships--we identify these as evidence because they take the form of specific cases.

So, we need to find the assumption--the unstated piece of evidence that bridges the gap between his supporting facts and his overall claim. In this case, we zero in on the major shift in scope between C and E: the conclusion concerns what 'promotes' freedom, while the evidence show democracy not guaranteeing freedom.

Thus, his assumption is that because democracy does not guarantee freedom, it does not promote freedom. Since this assumption is silly, we look for the answer the best explains why--choice D.

Sir,

I chose D, but I was not very sure why A is wrong can you please explain how to eliminate A.
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 640
Location: Cambridge, MA

Show Tags

28 Aug 2012, 10:51
vivekdixit07 wrote:

Sir,

I chose D, but I was not very sure why A is wrong can you please explain how to eliminate A.
Hi Vivek,

What about A makes it seem tempting?
_________________

Eli Meyer
Kaplan Teacher
http://www.kaptest.com/GMAT

Prepare with Kaplan and save \$150 on a course!

Kaplan Reviews

Current Student
Joined: 05 Nov 2014
Posts: 23
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT 1: 760 Q51 V41
GPA: 3.65
WE: Analyst (Retail Banking)
Political scientist: As a political system [#permalink]

Show Tags

12 Dec 2014, 09:00
5
KUDOS
8
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does not promote political freedom. There are historical examples of democracies that ultimately resulted in some of the most oppressive societies. Likewise, there have been enlightened despotisms and oligarchies that have provided a remarkable level of political freedom to their subjects.

The reasoning in the political scientist's argument is flawed because it

A.confuses the conditions necessary for political freedom with the conditions sufficient to bring it about
B. fails to consider that a substantial increase in the level of political freedom might cause a society to become more democratic
C. appeals to historical examples that are irrelevant to the causal claim being made
D. overlooks the possibility that democracy promotes political freedom without being necessary or sufficient by itself to produce it
E. bases its historical case on a personal point of view

+1 KUDOS PLEASE IF YOU ANSWER IT WRONG. WILL GET ONE KUDOS FROM ME IF YOU ANSWER IT RIGHT.
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 359
Location: Russian Federation
Concentration: General Management, Economics
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
WE: Sales (Telecommunications)
Re: Political scientist: As a political system [#permalink]

Show Tags

13 Dec 2014, 09:10
Political scientist overlooked the possibility that democracy itself can't guarantee political freedom. It is just a condition but "democracy=political freedom" is not correct.
_________________

"Are you gangsters?" - "No we are Russians!"

Manager
Joined: 25 Mar 2014
Posts: 158
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Finance
GMAT Date: 05-10-2015
GPA: 3.51
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Re: Political scientist: As a political system [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Feb 2015, 21:04
1
KUDOS
OA is D.
Conclusion: Democracy (D) does not promote political freedom (P).
Premise: Conflicting examples from past.
Authors wants to reach to his conclusion by showing that there are examples in past when D did not promote P.
Author tries to weaken an assumption that when ever D is present P is promoted by D, i.e. D is necessary for P.
Argument becomes flawed when this assumption is not true.
Hence the option D is best fit.
_________________

Please give Kudos to the post if you liked.

Current Student
Joined: 20 Aug 2016
Posts: 40
Location: India
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V30
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
GPA: 3.67
Re: Political scientist: As a political system [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Oct 2016, 05:35
can someone please explain why C is wrong?
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 359
Location: Russian Federation
Concentration: General Management, Economics
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
WE: Sales (Telecommunications)
Re: Political scientist: As a political system [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Oct 2016, 06:09
nileshsharma2105 wrote:
can someone please explain why C is wrong?

C is wrong since it states vice versa. Argument appeals to examples that are relevant to the claims made. Second sentence illustrates what is said in the first sentence. Hence, C is wrong.
_________________

"Are you gangsters?" - "No we are Russians!"

Director
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 518
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
Re: Political scientist: As a political system [#permalink]

Show Tags

02 Nov 2016, 03:36
Top Contributor
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Let us talk about conditional statements -

If X happens, then Y happens. I can write this as - X --> Y.
Here X is the sufficient condition and Y is the necessary condition.
Why is X called the sufficient condition? If X happens, then it is sufficient for Y to happen.
Also, note that when X happens, Y does necessarily occur. i.e. Whenever X happens, Y always happens.
Consequently, If Y does not happen then X also cannot happen. i.e. Not Y --> Not X.

Let me illustrate this with a simple example - If it rains, then there will be a traffic jam.
Rains --> Traffic Jam.
Here, 'rains' is the sufficient condition. This means that WHENEVER it rains, there will be a traffic jam.
'traffic jam' is the necessary condition. Consequently, If there is NO traffic jam, it cannot rain.
Also, note that traffic jam --> may or may not mean rains. (Traffic jams can occur because of other reasons - strikes, processions etc.)

Let us now look at the argument -
Premise 1 - Some Democracies --> No political freedom (most oppressive societies)
Premise 2 - Political Freedom --> Some despotisms and oligarchies (No democracy).
Conclusion - Democracy --> Does not promote freedom.

Let us again look at Premise 1 and this argument - Democracy --> Political Freedom.
From this, we know that Democracy is not a sufficient condition for Political Freedom. If it were, Premise 1 would be incorrect.

Let us look at Premise 2 and this argument - Political Freedom --> Democracy
From this, we know that Democracy is not a necessary condition for Political Freedom. If it were, Premise 2 would be incorrect.

Based on these two, the author makes the conclusion that democracy does not promote freedom.

A - the author does not confuse necessary and sufficient conditions in his/her argument. All we know from the premises is that democracy is neither sufficient/necessary for political freedom.
Also, note that the author's conclusion (Democracy does not promote freedom) does not mention if any conditions are necessary/sufficient to bring about political freedom.

B - look at this argument - Democracy --> Freedom. (The author's conclusion is trying to weaken this argument.)
One way to weaken this argument is through reverse causation.
That is by saying that Freedom --> Democracy
B weakens the argument above through this. Hence, it acts as a strengthener to the author's argument.

C - is incorrect. Note that the premises 1 and 2 are very much relevant to the author's argument.
The states that based on premises 1 and 2, democracy is not sufficient/necessary for political freedom. Hence, it does not promote political freedom.

D - correct answer. The argument ignores the possibility that even if democracy is not sufficient/necessary for political freedom, it can still support political freedom.
Premise 1 states Democracy is not sufficient for political freedom. This does not mean that Democracy does not support political freedom. For example - there might be other factors (such as a deeply theocratic society) that might prevent Democracy from guaranteeing political freedom.

Premise 2 states that Democracy is not a necessary condition for political freedom. Does not mean that democracy does not promote freedom. There might be other factors (such as a secular constitution, powerful court system) that can guarantee freedom in the absence of democracy.

E - The historical examples given are facts, not the author's personal points of view.

Hope this helps
_________________

Register for CrackVerbal MBA Achiever's Summit here -
http://crackverbal.com/mba-summit-2018

Enroll for our GMAT Trial Course here -
http://gmatonline.crackverbal.com/

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 801
Re: Political scientist: As a political system [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 Jul 2017, 07:55
Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!
_________________

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 801
Re: Political scientist: As a political system [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 Dec 2017, 21:19
Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!
_________________

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 801
Re: Political scientist: As a political system [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 Dec 2017, 21:19
Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!
_________________

Re: Political scientist: As a political system   [#permalink] 18 Dec 2017, 21:19
Display posts from previous: Sort by