Sociologist: Widespread acceptance of the idea that individuals are in

Question

Sociologist: Widespread acceptance of the idea that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare is injurious to a democracy. So legislators who value democracy should not propose any law prohibiting behavior that is not harmful to anyone besides the person engaging in it. After all, the assumptions that appear to guide legislators will often become widely accepted. The sociologist’s argument requires the assumption that

(A) democratically elected legislators invariably have favorable attitudes toward the preservation of democracy

(B) people tend to believe what is believed by those who are prominent and powerful

(C) legislators often seem to be guided by the assumption that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare, even though these legislators also seem to value democracy

(D) in most cases, behavior that is harmful to the person who engages in it is harmful to no one else

(E) a legislator proposing a law prohibiting an act that can harm only the person performing the act will seem to be assuming that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare.

Source  :  LSAT PrepTest 52 Q25

GMATNinjaTwo · Accepted Answer

Thanks  warriorguy ! I agree that (C) does not fit.
 
The conclusion of the argument is that, "legislators who value democracy should not propose any law prohibiting behavior that is not harmful to anyone besides the person engaging in it" Why not? - because such laws would imply that "individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare". If legislators are guided by that assumption, that idea (that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare) will most likely become widely accepted. According to the author, widespread acceptance of such an idea would be "injurious to a democracy."

Remember that the author's entire argument is based on a hypothetical scenario (legislators  should not propose  any law...). Proposing such laws could, hypothetically, be injurious to democracy because that would mean that legislators are guided by the assumption that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare. This argument does not REQUIRE that legislators  already  often seem to be guided by that assumption.

niks18 · Answer

Premise 1: Widespread acceptance of the idea that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare is injurious to a democracy

Premise 2: After all,the assumptions that appear to guide legislators will often become widely accepted

Conclusion: So legislators who value democracy should not propose any law prohibiting behavior that is not harmful to anyone besides the person engaging in it

So, author concludes that legislators should refrain from passing certain laws that harm democracy. What could be the assumptions that will force the legislators in making such laws? It could be that people are incapable of own welfare. Sociologists assumption is based on legislators assumption.

Option  E   presents the assumption of the Sociologist

gmatexam439 · Answer

Hello,

What is the issue with option C?

Regards

warriorguy · Answer

My 2 cents:

(C) legislators often seem to be guided by the assumption that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare,even though these legislators also seem to value democracy

Here, often is a problem. It does not fit well in the argument. The sentence as a whole is not an assumption of the argument.

From the stem, it is given that "After all,the assumptions that appear to guide legislators will often become widely accepted. "

For the sake of democracy, legislators should not approve such laws. E fits the bills by stating that "a legislator proposing a law prohibiting an act that can harm only the person performing the act will seem to be assuming that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare." Such a thing could affect democracy.

gmatexam439 · Answer

Actually i got confused by the repetitive language of the premise and then again the same sort of language in the options. 
Seems i need to work on my concentration. Thanks a lot bro  warriorguy

gmatexam439 · Answer

This is icing on the cake sir. Thanks a lot for the crystal clear explanation of the premise.

nightblade354 · Answer

Bumping for discussion. A tremendously difficult LSAT assumption question.

Pas4867 · Answer

There are two premises here. That the widespread acceptance of the idea that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare is injurious to a democracy and that the assumptions that seem to be behind the decisions that legislators make tend to become widely accepted. The conclusion that is drawn is that legislators should not pass any laws prohibiting actions that are only injurious to the one performing them.

The idea here is that passing such laws will lead people to assume that the legislators believe that people cannot be trusted to look after their own welfare, which will in turn lead to this idea becoming widely accepted which will be injurious to democracy.

It is option E that states this assumption, which is required for the argument to make sense. So, E is the right answer.

rish2708 · Answer

THis is a wonderful explanation.

I would like to add what  GMATNinjaTwo  has to say. Actually option C in a way challenges the basis on which the author draws his/her argument.

So the basis of the argument is that the Legislators should NOT pass the law of prohibition.

Now option C says something that is on CONTRARY. It says even though these legislators value democracy they don't have believe in people that they could handle their chores.

So the LIKELIHOOD as per this option goes AGAINST the argument because it directly QUESTIONS the BASIS on which author derives upon.

For this reason, I thought that it is slightly on the weakening end and can't be an ASSUMPTION at all.

Regards,
Rishav

dhruvasv5 · Answer

Negating E- If legislator is not assuming that individuals are not incapable, then it will actually be democracy and not law which will widespread i.e Conclusion does not hold true. Hence option E.

rvgmat12 · Answer

From Powerscore:

First of all, you are correct that this is an Assumption question. But what kind? Supporter or Defender? Well in this case, there are gaps in the argument which means it's a Supporter type, Assumption question that appears in about 40% of all the LSAT's Assumption questions. Remember, a correct answer choice in a Supporter Assumption will link together "new" or "rogue" elements in the stimulus or fill logical gaps in the argument.

So let's identify that gap. Specifically, a gap between the conclusion which you correctly identified, that can be conditionally stated as: if the legislators don't want to harm democracy, they should not pass laws prohibiting behavior of actions that are only harmful to those people engaging in the behavior and connecting that to the premises of "assumptions that appear to guide legislators will often become widely accepted" and "widespread acceptance of the idea of the idea that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare is injurious to democracy."

So I am looking for an answer choice that roughly states that if legislators pass a law against somebody's behavior which only harm themselves, then it will appear that the legislators were guided by an assumption that individuals are not capable of looking after their own welfare.

In looking at Answer Option (D), there is a large red flag right in the beginning with "in most cases." Remember, I am not looking for "most" (>50%) cases. I want something that fills the logical gap. I want a good conditional statement. I think you were trying to follow the rule of negating the necessary condition in what you thought was your conditional logic, but conditional logic is typically reserved for CERTAINTY. Some and most don't provide certainty other than "at least one" in the case of SOME and "more than half" in the case of MOST. And unfortunately, this is also where your logical negation of (d) went astray. Because that's where the negation should have happened with the "in most cases."

Now to your second question about removing the most clause. I think that if you took that out, it would be a good answer. Not the best, but it would attack that conclusion. But what about Answer Choice (E)? We know it's the right answer now. How did we get there? Well the prephrase above will help a lot with that. I know that it's wordy, but it's right. And focusing on conditional logic in these supporter types is CRUCIAL. But here's the best part about the Assumption Negation technique, it is your pathway to confirming the right answer when you think you have it.

The negation of Answer Choice (E) is: a legislator proposing a law prohibiting an act that can harm only the person performing the act will seem to be assuming that individuals are capable of looking after their own welfare. And that most definitely attacks the conclusion that legislators who value democracy should not propose any law prohibiting behavior that is not harmful to anyone besides the person engaging in it.

VIGHNESHKAMATH · Answer

It is a nested assumption argument

. We need to find the assumption behind the assumption that author has attested to the legislation. The argument assumes that people in general will be able to identify the assumption, implicit in the legislation. If people in general are not able to identify the assumption behind the legislation, then there will not be a widespread acceptance. Option E explains this necessity. On the other hand, the keyword to eliminate Option C is ''often''. No such adverbial fact is impressed in the original stimulus such as many, few, etc, so the question of ''often'' is not relevant here. Regards Vighnesh

Crytiocanalyst · Answer

(A) democratically elected legislators invariably have favorable attitudes toward the preservation of democracy 
This will be solely decided on whether or not the law will be passed which happens in the future therefore out

(B) people tend to believe what is believed by those who are prominent and powerful 
Irrerevelant out of context doesn't have the slighest impact therefore out

(C) legislators often seem to be guided by the assumption that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare, even though these legislators also seem to value democracy 
Now to the trap answer , this cannot be assumed since there is no metric for us to asses whether the legislator who's implementing the law to showcase his value to democracy therefore out

(D) in most cases, behavior that is harmful to the person who engages in it is harmful to no one else 
This is no where stated and cannot be approved or disapproved therefore out

(E) a legislator proposing a law prohibiting an act that can harm only the person performing the act will seem to be assuming that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare.
This is the only half that's in line with the argument , if the law is implemented then the legislative stamps the norm that people ar incapable therefore out

sayan640 · Answer

@VeritasKarishma  generis   GMATNinja  Can you please explain option C and option E ?

GMATGuruNY   mikemcgarry

GMATGuruNY · Answer

Premise:
 Assumptions that appear to guide legislators will often become widely accepted, and widespread acceptance of the idea that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare is injurious to a democracy. 
Conclusion:
 Legislators who value democracy should not propose any law prohibiting behavior that is harmful only to the person engaging in it .

Apply the NEGATION TEST.
When the correct answer is negated, the conclusion will be invalidated.

E, negated:
 A legislator proposing a law prohibiting an act that can harm only the person performing the act will NOT be assuming that  individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare . 
Implication of this negation:
There will NOT be widespread acceptance of the assumption in blue, with the result that democracy will NOT be injured -- invalidating the conclusion that  legislators who value democracy should not propose any law prohibiting behavior that is harmful only to the person engaging in it .
Since the negation of E invalidates the conclusion, E is an assumption: a statement that MUST BE TRUE for the conclusion to hold.

E

C, negated:
 Legislators do not often seem to be guided by the assumption that  individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare . 
Here, legislators ARE sometimes guided by the assumption in blue.
As a result, there could be widespread acceptance of this assumption -- injuring democracy and thus STRENGTHENING the conclusion that  legislators who value democracy should not propose any law prohibiting behavior that is harmful only to the person engaging in it .
Since the negation of C does not invalidate the conclusion, eliminate C.

unraveled · Answer

Sociologist: Widespread acceptance of the idea that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare is injurious to a democracy. So legislators who value democracy should not propose any law prohibiting behavior that is not harmful to anyone besides the person engaging in it. After all, the assumptions that appear to guide legislators will often become widely accepted. The sociologist’s argument requires the assumption that

First, let's deep dive in the passage.
Sociologist gives first an idea that is widely accepted(as per him/her). Then suggests that legislators believing in democracy not to propose a law prohibiting such widely accepted idea. Thereafter, a reasoning is given why s/he suggests so i.e. if legislators proposes such a law that prohibits such behaviour believing that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare THEN this belief would be widely accepted as result.

So, here the argument is kind of in a loop whether legislators assume something or not is altogether a different aspect.
Note: TRAP could be that one may try to find legislators assumption instead of sociologist's in the thick of that moment of find the assumption.

(A) democratically elected legislators invariably have favorable attitudes toward the preservation of democracy - WRONG. Irrelevant at best.

(B) people tend to believe what is believed by those who are prominent and powerful - WRONG. Again irrelevant.

(C) legislators often seem to be guided by the assumption that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare, even though these legislators also seem to value democracy - WRONG. It seems to reiterate what is already there in the passage with slight change of meaning by using words in the end(red text).

(D) in most cases, behavior that is harmful to the person who engages in it is harmful to no one else - WRONG. Fell for this one

ín most cases' is red flag as i understand now. It is a nice diversion from actual argument itself.

(E) a legislator proposing a law prohibiting an act that can harm only the person performing the act will seem to be assuming that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare. - CORRECT. Only if legislators believe such a thing they would propose such a law prohibiting that act.

Answer E.

ín most cases' is red flag as i understand now. It is a nice diversion from actual argument itself. (E) a legislator proposing a law prohibiting an act that can harm only the person performing the act will seem to be assuming that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare. - CORRECT. Only if legislators believe such a thing they would propose such a law prohibiting that act. Answer E.

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - 
Sociologist: Widespread acceptance of the idea that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare is injurious to a democracy. - Premise. How is it injurious to democracy? The basic premise of democracy is that people know what's best for them, and they act accordingly. They vote. But if people don't even know what's best for them or they can't make their personal decisions, the basic thread of democracy breaks.

So, legislators who value democracy should not propose any law prohibiting behavior that is not harmful to anyone besides the person engaging in it. - Conclusion. Example - If someone doesn't take the proper diet or someone is not taking proper sunlight to get the required vitamin D (bad for a person but may not necessarily be bad for the entire country. Probably as a country, there are more important issues to handle than ensuring right decisions for every person in the country), the conclusion is that, say, the Supreme Court should not make laws prohibiting the person from eating a bad diet/not taking proper sunlight. Making such laws for everything would mean that legislators don't believe people can take care of themselves.

The conclusion is that lawmakers should not make laws (managing people's personal lives or views) that project as if people cannot make decisions themselves.

After all, the assumptions (people can or can't make their decisions) that appear to guide legislators will often become widely accepted. - supporting premise for the conclusion, just like the 1st premise. What happens if that becomes widely accepted? Then, it's not good for democracy.

The sociologist’s argument requires the assumption that

Option Elimination - We must find the missing premise, minimum condition, or assumption.

(A) democratically elected legislators invariably have favorable attitudes toward the preservation of democracy - out of scope.

(B) people tend to believe what is believed by those who are prominent and powerful - The scope of the argument is to find a missing premise for the conclusion: "So legislators who value democracy should not propose any law prohibiting behavior." Let's see if we add this

Premise 1- Widespread acceptance of idea X is injurious to democracy. 
Premise 2- Legislators' assumptions will become widely accepted. 
Added premise - people tend to believe what is believed by those who are prominent and powerful
Conclusion - So, legislators should not propose any law prohibiting behavior.

This statement has no bearing on the conclusion and is out of scope.

(C) legislators often seem to be guided by the assumption that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare, even though these legislators also seem to value democracy -

Premise 1- Widespread acceptance of idea X is injurious to democracy. 
Premise 2- Legislators' assumptions will become widely accepted. 
Added premise - legislators often seem to be guided by the assumption that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare.
Conclusion - So, legislators should not propose any law prohibiting behavior.

It's as if we are saying that X often seems to be guided by the assumption that people are incapable of taking care of themselves. So, X should not propose laws that project people incapable of taking care of themselves. Distortion.

(D) in most cases, behavior that is harmful to the person who engages in it is harmful to no one else - out of scope.

(E) a legislator proposing a law prohibiting an act that can harm only the person performing the act will seem to be assuming that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare.

Premise 1- Widespread acceptance of idea X is injurious to democracy. 
Premise 2- Legislators' assumptions will become widely accepted. 
Added premise - a legislator proposing a law prohibiting an act that can harm only the person performing the act will seem to be assuming that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare.
Conclusion - So, legislators should not propose any law prohibiting behavior. Why? Because Premise 2, and as Premise 1 says, it's injurious to democracy. Ok.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Sociologist: Widespread acceptance of the idea that individuals are in

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

Sociologist: Widespread acceptance of the idea that individuals are in

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