Bunuel
An economic or political crisis in a poor country can lead to a lack of faith in the country's leaders, which is often followed by violent behavior, dissent, and even revolt among specific segments of the population. In many cases, propaganda is immediately issued from media outlets that quells such reactions by downplaying the extent of the recent crisis, thereby helping to restore belief in the efficacy of the government. However, the habitual violence exhibited by certain groups of disaffected youths in such countries generally has nothing to do with a lack of faith in their leaders, but rather is the consequence of an endemic boredom and lack of any vision of a positive future for themselves.
Which of the following statements follows most logically from the statements in the passage above?
(A) It is easier to quell periodic revolts in poor countries than it is to solve the habitual problem of youth violence.
(B) In all poor countries, propaganda alone cannot entirely diffuse dissent stemming from an economic or political crisis.
(C) Economic and political crises do not lead to any instances of youth violence in poor countries.
(D) The effect that propaganda has in putting down revolts in poor countries is primarily related to its ability to alter people's fundamental beliefs.
(E) To the extent that propaganda may help to decrease youth violence in a poor country, it is probably not the result of restoring the youths' faith in their country's leadership.
KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:
This is the one featuring the element of causation; in fact, the argument begins with a full chain of causality: A crisis (step 1) can lead to a decrease in people's faith in their country's leaders (step 2), which can in turn lead to violence in unspecified segments of the population (step 3). Propaganda limits the perception of the crisis, thereby keeping the first domino from falling, and therefore favorably impacting at least the second step in the chain. This is the author's first explanation for violence, and the propaganda solution refers only to it. The author then gives an entirely different explanation for violence, this time more specifically explaining youth violence. Accordingly, youth violence is caused by boredom and lack of vision regarding a promising future. We have two paths explaining violence, and the answer to this Inference question will certainly test our ability to distinguish between them. Let's evaluate the answer choices, keeping the distinctions in mind.
(A) While the author offers us one potential antidote to the first type of violence without making any such reference in regards to the second, that doesn't mean that there is no solution for the second type. Because something isn't mentioned, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, so we have no way of inferring which type of violence is easier to quell.
(B) For all we know, propaganda alone may be enough to entirely diffuse dissent in some poor countries, possibly those without disaffected youth, or even those with disaffected youth who are not driven to dissent by such crises.
(C) is too extreme and distorts the argument. The author writes that economic and political crises lead to violence among "specific segments of the population," which may include youth; the author certainly doesn't rule out that possibility. Further, because boredom and lack of vision lead to habitual youth violence, that doesn't mean that only boredom and lack of vision lead to youth violence. The two explanations aren't mutually exclusive.
(D) also goes too far out on a limb. The author mentions two effects of the propaganda; it downplays the extent of the crisis and restores faith in the government. However, we don't know that an alteration in people's "fundamental beliefs" is inherent in either one of these cases; we simply know that the propaganda has an effect on their immediate actions at the time of the crisis.
(E) does the trick: Since the author does not directly link habitual youth violence to economic or political crises, or to the decrease in faith which such crises create, propaganda probably doesn't decrease that violence by restoring faith in the country's leaders. The author specifically says that habitual youth violence is not caused by a loss of such faith, so restoring the faith probably wouldn't help matters any. If propaganda helps to quell habitual youth violence, then it probably does it in some other way.
An 800 test taker is wary of extreme answer choices that make over-eager claims such as those found in choices (A) through (D) here. He knows that the right choice in an Inference question won't intensify the argument.