Q18 - Wong: Although all countries are

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
ID the Disagreement

Stimulus Breakdown:
W: Everyone's better off as a democracy, but sometimes you need a transitional autocratic (dictatorial) stage to get there.
T: Democracy provides freedom and autonomy, which are valuable, but sometimes material needs matter more. And some countries better achieve those material needs as autocracies.

Answer Anticipation:
If we re-read Wong's two claims, which one does Tate seem to be arguing against? "Some countries AREN'T better off as democracies" or "A transitional autocratic stage is NEVER required to become democratic"? It sounds way more like the first thing. Some countries aren't better off because material needs sometimes matter most and autocracies sometimes provide those better.

Prephase: "Whether ALL countries are better off as democracies or whether sometimes they're better off as autocracies"

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Yes! Wong commits himself to "No" and Tate implies "Yes".

(B) Wong never addressed whether freedom and autonomy are #1 priorities or not.

(C) Neither person ever addressed whether democracy is ever impossible (although Wong thinks sometimes an autocratic stage is required to get there).

(D) Both would presumably agree with this, but Wong has no comment.

(E) Neither person signed off on this crazy-extreme claim.

Takeaway/Pattern: After reading both people's statements, flip the truth value of each of person 1's claims, and figure out which one person 2 was arguing. (In rarer cases, person 2 is fighting an assumption, not an explicit claim)

#officialexplanation

[xinglipku]

Can you please explain a little bit more about A? I feel that even if it says all democracies will better off, it doesn't say autocratic will not better off, so it can't be the disagreeing point.

Thanks!

[KakaJaja]

Hi, Xinglipku,

If Wong only says the first half of his argument -- "all countries are better off as democracies", I will agree with you that he does not tell whether a country can be better off as autocratic, since by "better off", he may be comparing a situation after democratic/ autocratic government will have established with now, which may be in war or other chaotic situations.

However, there is a second part of his argument -- sometimes a transitional autocratic government is necessary. Like if I say, "I am always better off living in a condo, but sometimes when I move to a new city renting a temporary apartment BEFORE I can find a condo is necessary." If I really think apartment is better than condo, would I say that an apartment is a temporary choice before I finally move into condo?

So I think though Wong does not explicitly say democracy is better than autocracy, he actually implies that.

For other choices:
B) We know Tate doesn't agree, but we have no idea what Wong thinks.
C) They are talking about which one is better, not the possibility/feasibility to realize.
D) Tate agrees, but we don't know about Wong.
E) We know neither of them about this. Though Tate says sometimes autocracies can meet the needs better, but he never says about democracy.

[maryadkins]

Great response, and thanks for it!

Only part I disagree with you on is this:

If Wong only says the first half of his argument -- "all countries are better off as democracies", I will agree with you that he does not tell whether a country can be better off as autocratic

If all countries are better off, and we're not told how (or when this isn't true), we have to interpret it on its face: all countries are better off. Period. What does that mean--all of the time? Sure. It means they're better off than... [everything].

And if they're better off as democracies, they can't be better off as autocracies. The second part of (A) serves to reinforce his point.