Essayist: One of the drawbacks of extreme personal and political freed

Question

Essayist: One of the drawbacks of extreme personal and political freedom is that free choices are often made for the worst. To expect people to thrive when they are given the freedom to make unwise decisions is frequently unrealistic. Once people see the destructive consequences of extreme freedom, they may prefer to establish totalitarian political regimes that allow virtually no freedom. Thus, one should not support political systems that allow extreme freedom.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the essayist’s reasoning?

(A) One should not support any political system that will inevitably lead to the establishment of a totalitarian political regime.

(B) One should not expect everyone to thrive even in a political system that maximizes people’s freedom in the long run.

(C) One should support only those political systems that give people the freedom to make wise choices.

(D) One should not support any political system whose destructive consequences could lead people to prefer totalitarian political regimes.

(E) One should not support any political system that is based on unrealistic expectations about people’s behavior under that system.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

100 percent bullshit. “Freedom makes it possible for people to make bad choices. Once people see the results of their bad decisions they  may  prefer totalitarian regimes. Thus one should not support political systems that allow extreme freedom.”

Basically, eff you. Show me one example of a society that has had freedom, then said, “Oops we should bring in the Taliban instead.” I mean, according to the premises, this is  possible . But, that doesn’t mean it has actually ever happened. Nor does it mean that it’s at all likely to happen. Nor does it mean that the slight risk of this  maybe  happening would outweigh the certain cost of restricting our own freedoms in advance, just in case, to protect against this crazy scenario from occurring.

Nor does it mean, on a totally separate angle of attack, that, if it  did  actually happen in some scenario, the society couldn’t be better off with (perhaps a benevolent) totalitarian regime.

After all that, we’re asked to justify the essayist’s reasoning. So we have to switch teams. How do we get from the evidence, “If given freedom, people may then choose totalitarian regimes,” to the conclusion, “So we should not support political systems that allow extreme freedom”?

My guess is something like, “We should  never  take  any  risk of establishing a totalitarian regime.” If this were true, then I suppose the conclusion of the horrible argument would be proven. The evidence says that if we allow extreme freedom, then there is  some  risk, however slight, that we’ll end up with a totalitarian regime.

A) This is wrong because of “inevitably.” If it said “possibly,” it would be the correct answer.

B) Not what we’re looking for. It doesn’t connect the evidence to the conclusion.

C) This would weaken the argument, I think. We’re looking for a sufficient condition, i.e., something that  strengthens  the argument beyond a shadow of a doubt.

D) There we go. This is very similar to our prediction. If it’s true, the conclusion would have to be true. So this is the answer.

E) Just because it’s “frequently unrealistic” to expect people to thrive doesn’t mean the whole system was “based on” an unrealistic expectation. Anyway, this doesn’t connect the evidence to the conclusion and D does.

D is our answer

PyjamaScientist · Answer

Man, LSAT CR questions are tough, no wonder why  carcass  hates them.

This is a Strengthen type.

This argument can be broken down as:

Premise: People with too much freedom make extreme choices which ain't good in long run.
Premise: Once they see extreme freedom, they may result into regimes that allow no freedom.
Conclusion: Regimes that provide extreme freedom should not be supported.

(D) One should not support any political system whose destructive consequences could lead people to prefer totalitarian political regimes. 
 This bridges the premises to the conclusion. Not supporting such political systems whose bad consequences might result in totalitarian regimes.   Correct Choice .

(B) One should not expect everyone to thrive even in a political system that maximizes people’s freedom in the long run.
 This one might be tempting. But it's just a restatement of the passage. The passage has already said that political systems with extreme freedom ain't good for the public anyway. So, a restatement of a passage can not be a strengthener.

(E) One should not support any political system that is based on unrealistic expectations about people’s behavior under that system.
 I almost fell for this one. But, although, the passage does mention unrealistic expectations with respect to  expecting people to make unwise decisions , but nowhere has it stated that the entire political system is based on unrealistic expectations regarding something. And even if it were based on unrealistic expectations would it help strengthen our argument? I don't think so.

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - 
Essayist: One of the drawbacks of extreme personal and political freedom is that free choices are often made for the worst. - Background information. General phenomenon. This means that "free choices are often made for the worst." If, say, children are allowed to eat whatever they want freely. They may prefer candy or ice cream or carbohydrate-rich diets and may leave out fruits, vegetables, protein sources, healthy fat sources, etc., leading to harmful health effects in the long run.

To expect people to thrive when they are given the freedom to make unwise decisions is frequently unrealistic. - opinion.

Once people see the destructive consequences of extreme freedom, they may prefer to establish totalitarian political regimes that allow virtually no freedom. - opinion

Thus, one should not support political systems that allow extreme freedom. - Conclusion.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the essayist’s reasoning?

Option Elimination - strengthen the essayist reasoning.

(A) One should not support any political system that will inevitably lead to the establishment of a totalitarian political regime. - the argument talks about "the possibility - may" and not "will inevitably." Distortion.

(B) One should not expect everyone to thrive even in a political system that maximizes people’s freedom in the long run. - Already implied in the argument. Some people's free choices are often made for the worst. Distortion.

(C) One should support only those political systems that give people the freedom to make wise choices. - out of scope.

(D) One should not support any political system whose destructive consequences could lead people to prefer totalitarian political regimes. - ok. Aligned with the argument reasoning.

(E) One should not support any political system that is based on unrealistic expectations about people’s behavior under that system. - Out of scope.

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.

Essayist: One of the drawbacks of extreme personal and political freed

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

Essayist: One of the drawbacks of extreme personal and political freed

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