In countries where government officials are neither selected by free

Question

In countries where government officials are neither selected by free elections nor open to criticism by a free press, the lives of citizens are controlled by policies they have had no role in creating. This is why such countries are prone to civil disorder, in spite of the veneer of calm such countries often present to a visitor. When people do not understand the purpose of the restrictions placed on their behavior they have a greater tendency to engage in civil disorder as an expression of their frustration.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) People who have had a role in making the laws that govern their own behavior act more rationally than those who have not.

(B) A free press is better able to convey to citizens the purpose of government policy than is a press controlled by the government.

(C) Civil disorder cannot be prevented by security forces alone, however great the powers granted them by the government.

(D) People tend not to understand the purpose of restrictions unless they participate in their formulation.

(E) Civil disorder does not generally occur in countries that have either free elections or a free press.

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

Hmm. This feels like a fairly tough one to me, because the argument is long and the elements are presented out of order. The first two sentences seem to be the conclusion, which is a cause-and-effect relationship. Rearranging the first two sentences, we get this: “Countries where government officials are neither selected by free elections nor open to criticism by a free press are prone to civil disorder  because  the lives of citizens in these countries are controlled by policies they have had no role in creating.” I think this is probably the conclusion for two reasons: First, I am highly sensitive to cause-and-effect on the LSAT. Any time you see a proposed cause-and-effect on an LSAT question, you need to ask yourself if it’s being presented as fact or opinion. It’s usually opinion, and opinion is usually bullshit. Second, the rest of the argument seems to support this idea. The third sentence offers a reason  why  people who didn’t have a role in creating their laws—or, more accurately, people who don’t understand the purpose of the restrictions placed on them, which is not necessarily the same thing—might be prone to civil disorder.

Okay. This question sucks, don’t get me wrong. I’m not happy at this point, but I do at least think I’ve understood the argument. Let’s see what the question is asking.

We’re asked to identify an “assumption on which the argument depends.” So we’re looking for a missing piece of the argument, or a necessary assumption. A necessary assumption is something that must be true, or else the argument will fail. I can’t necessarily predict the correct answer here. Let’s see if we can find an answer that would fill a gap in the argument, something that would more tightly connect the argument’s evidence to the argument’s conclusion.

A) I don’t think “acting rationally” has anything to do with this argument. Isn’t it possible to carry out an act of civil disobedience while acting rationally? (Couldn’t Rosa Parks have possibly been rational?) Basically, since the argument didn’t mention rationality in any way, in either the evidence or the conclusion, it’s impossible for this answer to be something that the argument has “assumed.”

B) The author would probably agree with this, but that doesn’t mean it’s a  necessary  component of the author’s argument. I’m looking for something that connects the supporting idea, “People who don’t understand the laws are prone to civil disobedience,” to the conclusion, “Countries whose people don’t have a role in making the laws are prone to civil disobedience.” I don’t see how, “The press are better able to convey the purpose of a government policy,” connects these two ideas.

C) Security forces? What does that have to do with anything? I’d use the same explanation on C as I offered for A. There’s no way this can be the answer, because it’s just not what the author is talking about.

D) I like this one. If this is NOT true, then the author is in really big trouble. If people DO understand the purpose of laws they didn’t create, then how the hell could the author’s argument make any sense? It would go like this:

Premise: People who don’t understand their laws are prone to civil disobedience.  
  Premise: People can understand a law without having created it.  
  Conclusion: Therefore, countries where people don’t create their own laws are prone to civil disobedience.

And that would make no sense whatsoever. This proves, to me, that the author has “assumed” that people tend not to understand a law they didn’t
create. I bet our answer is D.

E) This might support the author’s conclusion, but it’s not  necessary  in order for the author’s argument to make sense. (Maybe there’s civil disorder everywhere, but there is just more of it in countries where people don’t make their own laws. Even if this were true, the author’s argument would still make sense.)

I like D best, because if D is untrue, it would totally shatter the argument. That’s the hallmark of the correct answer on a Necessary Assumption question.

mayankdgmat · Answer

Let G = In countries where government officials are neither selected by free elections nor open to criticism by a free press

P= the lives of citizens are controlled by policies they have had no role in creating

D = do not understand the purpose of the restrictions placed on their behavior

C=Civil disorder

Premise: G---->P

D--->C

Conclusion: G type countries are prone to civil disorder.

So P---->D is missing in premise i.e. when they don't participate in formulation which led to not understanding the restriction placed.  Only option (D) is clearly saying that.

unraveled · Answer

In countries where government officials are neither selected by free elections nor open to criticism by a free press,  the lives of citizens are controlled by policies they have had no role in creating. This is why such countries are prone to civil disorder,  in spite of the veneer of calm such countries often present to a visitor.  When people do not understand the purpose of the restrictions placed on their behavior they have a greater tendency to engage in civil disorder  as an expression of their frustration.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) People who have had a role in making the laws that govern their own behavior act more rationally  than  those who have not. - WRONG. A comparison is not identifiable not it can be an assumption.

(B) A free press is better able to  convey to citizens the purpose of government policy than  is a press controlled by the government. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(C) Civil disorder  cannot be prevented by security forces alone , however great the powers granted them by the government. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(D) People tend not to understand the purpose of restrictions  unless they participate in their formulation . - CORRECT. If not then it is trouble.

(E) Civil disorder does not generally occur in countries that have either free elections or a free press. - WRONG. The situation reversal in not necessarily true.

Answer D.

In countries where government officials are neither selected by free

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

In countries where government officials are neither selected by free

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