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

Question

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

KapTeacherEli · Accepted Answer

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.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

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

dav35 · Answer

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?

vivekdixit07 · Answer

Sir,

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

KapTeacherEli · Answer

Hi Vivek,

What about A makes it seem tempting?

Konstantin1983 · Answer

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.

aniteshgmat1101 · Answer

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.

nileshsharma2105 · Answer

can someone please explain why C is wrong?

Konstantin1983 · Answer

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.

AgarwalArpit20 · Answer

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.

Mahmud6 · Answer

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.

unraveled · Answer

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 - WRONG. Which systems promotes which doesn't is not the question but why one doesn't and to relate it with why other does is questionable when the examples are the only criteria seems to have been used. 
(B) fail to consider that a  substantial increase in the level of political freedom might cause  a society to become more democratic - WRONG. Irrelevant. 
(C) appeals to historical examples that are irrelevant to the  causal claim being made  - WRONG. The examples might not be irrelevant but causality is questionable. 
(D)  overlooks  the possibility that democracy promotes political freedom without being necessary or sufficient by itself to produce it - CORRECT. Can't say that it can be chosen but POE helps reach this one. Overlooking certainly holds value as there might be other parameters or aspects that define the two systems emphatically.
(E) bases its historical case on a  personal point of view  - WRONG. "Point if view" is understandable but "personal" is not. More gruesome is that that it shifts the scope of the passage. It compares two systems one of which is identified as promoting political freedom and other not. Evidence is historical examples put forward. The flaw is that examples can be extremes of the two systems that are different at the core itself. So, POV doesn't matter.

Answer D.

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards