GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 20 Jun 2018, 14:21

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does not promote

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

1 KUDOS received
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1264
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does not promote [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Sep 2009, 12:30
1
2
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  85% (hard)

Question Stats:

46% (01:31) correct 54% (01:31) wrong based on 402 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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

_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit


GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 640
Location: Cambridge, MA
Re: Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does not promote [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Sep 2009, 15:40
1
1
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!

Image

Kaplan Reviews

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 02 Apr 2012
Posts: 8
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 3.4
Re: Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does not promote [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 May 2012, 11:50
1
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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Posts: 60
GMAT Date: 11-02-2012
Re: Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does not promote [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.
Expert Post
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 640
Location: Cambridge, MA
Re: Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does not promote [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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!

Image

Kaplan Reviews

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 353
Location: Russian Federation
Concentration: General Management, Economics
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
WE: Sales (Telecommunications)
Re: Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does not promote [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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!"

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Mar 2014
Posts: 155
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Finance
GMAT Date: 05-10-2015
GPA: 3.51
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Re: Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does not promote [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Feb 2015, 21:04
1
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
avatar
B
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, democracy does not promote [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Oct 2016, 05:35
can someone please explain why C is wrong?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 353
Location: Russian Federation
Concentration: General Management, Economics
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
WE: Sales (Telecommunications)
Re: Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does not promote [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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!"

Top Contributor
Director
Director
User avatar
S
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 518
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
Re: Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does not promote [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Nov 2016, 03:36
Top Contributor
2
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/

For more info on GMAT and MBA, follow us on @AskCrackVerbal

Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 09 Jan 2018
Posts: 59
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 4
Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does not promote [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 May 2018, 11:02

OFFICIAL SOLUTION:



Response (A) is incorrect. The political scientist’s argument does not indicate that any particular conditions are necessary for political freedom, nor does it indicate that any particular conditions are sufficient to bring about political freedom. Thus the argument could not be said to confuse these two sorts of conditions. Rather, the political scientist’s argument attempts to demonstrate that democracy does not promote political freedom on the grounds that democracy is neither necessary nor sufficient for bringing about political freedom.

Response (B) is incorrect. The argument does fail to consider whether a substantial increase in the level of political freedom would cause a society to become more democratic, but this does not constitute a flaw in its reasoning. The truth of the claim that increased political freedom causes greater democratization would not by itself undermine the political scientist’s conclusion that democracies do not promote political freedom. Nor does that claim engage with the argument’s premises, which are concerned with the effect of democracy on political freedom, not the effect of political freedom on democracy.

Response (C) is incorrect. The “causal claim being made” could only be the argument’s conclusion that democracy does not promote political freedom, which denies that there is a causal connection between democracy and political freedom. The historical examples in the argument are relevant to this claim, however. These examples are an important part of the larger body of historical evidence that one would look to when investigating the issue of whether democracy promotes political freedom.

Response (E) is also incorrect. The political scientist does not express a personal point of view or base the historical examples on such a view. On the contrary, the historical examples themselves are an impersonal, though flawed, basis for the argument’s conclusion.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
P
Status: The best is yet to come.....
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 539
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does not promote [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Jun 2018, 09:25
noboru wrote:
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


Option B is a good option to test weakener of a causal argument. One of the way to weaken a causal argument is to show that effect causes the cause. Here it can be tested.

Argument: Democracy does not promote political freedom
Weakener: Political freedom does not promote Democracy
Strengthener: Political freedom promotes Democracy
So, B is a strengthener. Not weakener.
_________________

Hasan Mahmud

Re: Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does not promote   [#permalink] 18 Jun 2018, 09:25
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does not promote

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.