Some argue that because attaining governmental power in democracies re

EXPLANATION FROM POWER SCORE

This stimulus begins with a common argumentative technique where the author states the viewpoint of a group that he or she will ultimately argue against. This is seen frequently on the LSAT, and can be recognized by common phrasings such as, “Some people argue…,” “A group of scientists has hypothesized…,” “There are those who believe…,” etcetera. When an author begins his or her argument by introducing the beliefs of another group, the main point of the author’s argument will almost always be the exact opposite of the opinion held by the other group that the author references. This is extremely consistent on the LSAT and useful for quickly determining an author’s position.

The stimulus begins by stating that some people recognize the necessity of shifting alliances and policies to maintain governmental power, but see this as a drawback of democratic governments since it prevents policymakers from strictly adhering to fixed principles. Predictably, the conclusion of this argument is the opposite of that view, as the author believes that the flexibility of government policymakers is actually beneficial. The author argues that this flexibility grants governments the adaptability they need to respond to public interests. Implicit in the author’s conclusion is a direct comparison of the value of each approach. If responding to public needs is more worthy than strictly adhering to principle, then this flexibility is more a benefit than an evil. If not, the author’s conclusion is illogical.

Answer choice (A): There is a distinction between attaining power and retaining power. In attaining governmental power, policymakers must build a majority coalition. Once in power, however, the policymakers are not bound to the factions of their original winning coalition. As the stimulus indicates, policymakers “shift policies as they try to please different constituents at different times.” Policymakers can constantly realign coalitions and retain power as long as they enjoy majority support.

Answer choice (B): The stimulus does not discuss nondemocratic forms of government and does not depend on a comparison between democratic policymakers and nondemocratic policymakers. Such a comparison has no impact on the validity of the author’s conclusion.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Note that the author does not say that lack of strict fidelity to principle (adaptability) is entirely positive. Indeed, the assertion that governmental flexibility is “more a benefit than an evil” suggests that there may well be some negative aspect to this behavior. But, in making his or her conclusion, the author assumes that the benefits of adaptability outweigh any associated detriments. If this were not true, the conclusion would be invalid. Since the conclusion depends on the veracity of this assumption, this answer choice is correct.

Answer choice (D): If a principle has majority support, policymakers may adhere rigorously to principle and still please different constituents. But the conclusion does not rest upon the assumption that policymakers can sometimes behave consistently with both of these positions. This assumption is not required by the argument.

Answer choice (E): Like answer choice (B), this answer discusses nondemocratic forms of government. Since the stimulus does not address these forms of government, it is not necessary to assume that they are actually more flexible than democratic forms of government.

--> building majority coalitions does not allow policymakers to adhere rigorously to principle when dealing with important issues,
--> but rather shift policies as they try to please different constituents at different times.
--> this shifting allows a democracy to adapt more easily to serve public interests, and thus it is more a benefit than an evil. [ Author's conclusion ]

Possible Assumption - The shifting policies do not allow policymakers to adhere rigorously to principles

(A) Government policymakers cannot retain power if they ignore any of the various factions of their original winning coalition.
--> This does not lend any support to the conclusion.

(B) Democracies are more likely than nondemocratic forms of government to have policymakers who understand the complexity of governmental issues.
--> No such comparison drawn

(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.
--> Something that we can derive from our assumption as a second level of thought that the benefits of one outweigh the benefits from other. Hence this strengthens the author's opinion

(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.
--> Principles are not associated with majority support, in fact, they are independent

(E) Democracies appear to be more flexible than nondemocratic forms of government, but are not actually so.
--> No such comparison drawn

IMO Option C

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.