#16 - Among multiparty democracies, those with the fewest

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (C)

The author presents the conclusion of this stimulus in the first sentence:

Multiparty democracies with fewest parties have the most productive legislatures.

This conclusion is based on the following premises:

• Premise 1: The fewer the parties, the more issues each must take a stand on.
  
  Premise 2: A wide variety of issues forces prioritization.
  
  Premise 3: Prioritization promotes a tendency to compromise.

The above premises can be diagrammed as follows:

• Fewer parties more issues prioritization compromise

In order to draw the conclusion presented in the stimulus, the author must believe that compromise is tied to productivity. In responding to this supporter assumption question, we should therefore look for the answer choice which allows for the following conditional statement:

• Fewer parties more issues prioritization compromise productivity

Thus we can prephrase the answer to this supporter assumption question.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. We must somehow link productivity with one of the sufficient conditions to the left in the diagram above. Correct answer choice (C) achieves exactly this, by linking compromise to productivity:

• compromise productivity

Answer choices (A) and (B) are incorrect because the stimulus doesn’t deal with disagreements within parties, or with the importance of compromise. Answer choices (D) and (E) are also incorrect, because the author never mentions nondemocracies, or whether or not legislators ever all agree.

[sblack1998]

So if you were using the Assumption Negation Technique with answer C which reads, "The tendency to compromise makes the legislative process more productive." How would you negate this statement? The tendency NOT to compromise makes the legislative process more productive?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi sblack,

To negate something, you have to find the logical opposite. Typically, you are looking to negate the main verb in the statement.

Some examples:

Mary likes pizza.
Mary does not like pizza.

We wouldn't say that Mary likes not-pizza because that's not the logical opposite of liking pizza. The liking is the key verb.

Running up a hill on a sunny day, Buttercup could not stop looking for Wesley.
Running up a hill on a sunny day, Buttercup could stop looking for Wesley.

It can be pretty easy when you just have to remove the "not" in the verb phrase.

Looking here, the main verb is "makes."

The tendency to compromise makes the legislative process more productive would become "The tendency to compromise does notmake the legislative process more productive."

Hope that helps!

[Dancingbambarina]

I understand there is an assumption link between a CAUSE and a condition here. So causality is mixed with conditionality. I see quite often (although not every LSAT) causality links being interchangeable with conditionality links.

What is the rule here?

Thank you

[Dana D]

Hey Dancing,

Can you explain your question a little more or what you mean with the cause and conditionality confusion?

I'm not sure if this addresses your question, but one thing you can think of is that sufficient conditions, while they do not necessarily cause a necessary condition, do tell us that the necessary condition 100% is met. Necessary conditions can exist without suficient conditions, however.

Causes, on the other hand, always come before an effect, and an effect cannot exist without a cause (otherwise there would not be a true cause and effect relationship).

For example, if I say all flamingos are pink, then you know
flamingo pink.

Anytime you see a flamingo, you know it will be pink, but the flamingo is not necessarily pink because it's a flamingo. This is a conditional relationship, not a cause and effect one. Additionally, you can see many pink things that aren't necessarily flamingos - pink is the necessary condition, it can exist without a flamingo being around.

In comparison, if I say that flamingos are pink because they eat lots of shrimp, then you know
shrimp CAUSE --> pink flamingos EFFECT

Pink flamingos cannot exist without shrimp, and they are only pink becuase of the shrimp.

Does that make sense?