Q19 - Historian: The spread of literacy

[ocho34]

Came down to (D) and (E). I understood (D) when I negated and can see that it weakens the conclusion,but still have problem understanding the negation of choice (E) and how it effects the conclusion.
Maybe the problem is that I don't really understand the meaning of the conclusion.

[bbirdwell]

This is a tricky argument! It's tricky because it contains a main conclusion and a subsidiary, or intermediate, conclusion. Thus, assumptions required by the argument may exist in the logic between the main conclusion and the intermediate conclusion, or even between the intermediate conclusion and its premises.

Here's some shorthand notation of the facts in the argument:

literacy ---> ppl informed of injustice
literacy + right circumstances ---> capacity to distinguish
"true reformers" from "mere opportunists"
(good guys from bad guys)
literacy emerges before general education

And here are the two conclusions, one built on top of the other:

1. in interim (after lit, before edu), ppl vulnerable to "clever demagogues" (bad guys)

2. some "good guys" may be toppled by increasing literacy

The gaps in this logic are hard to identify because the argument is complex, and thus there are many potential gaps. Some potential gaps involving the two conclusions:

1.

A. if literate ppl are vulnerable to bad guys (i.e. can't tell the bad guys from the good guys) before general education, then, considering the second premise above, general education must be part of the "right circumstances" necessary for distinguishing good guys from bad guys.

B. "vulnerable"?

2.

A. vulnerable populace = toppled regimes?
B. if this is so, it must be true that increasing literacy does not also increase education

Now for the answer choices. Remember, we are trying to identify something that MUST be true in order for the argument to function!

(A) out of scope. "public support" for demagogues is irrelevant to the conclusion(s).
(B) backwards logic, and irrelevant to conclusion. we know that literacy spreads information about injustice, we do not know that literacy is required for this.
(C) closer, but incorrect. It seems that the argument draws an implicit link between education and ability to distinguish "good guys" from "bad guys," but nothing is mentioned regarding preservation of benign authority.
(D) bingo. See 1.A. above. And, as you mentioned, the negation test is useful in verifying this: if lack of education does NOT affect distinguishing ability, then the intermediate conclusion regarding a "vulnerable populace" is not supported.
(E) out of scope. Note that our conclusion is that SOME benign regimes MAY be toppled. We need not make assumptions about ANY ("all") benign regime(s) actually BEING toppled.

Answer choice (E) seems closer to an inference than an assumption, as it involves some of the elements from the argument. Perhaps that's its appeal. Ultimately, though, it is neither an assumption nor an inference.

For exercise, can you re-write answer choice (E) so that it is a logically drawn inference?

[sissixz]

Thanks for your clear answer, I have one more question, however.

If this one is changed into "sentence playing role" type Q, which one of the two conclusions is the main conclusion?

I find "thus" to be the key words indicating that's the main one, but "Consequently" seems tempting too.

Well, sorry for thinking too much.

[bbirdwell]

Take the two candidates for "main conclusion" and see which one is logically built upon the other.

Here we have two choices:

1. In the interim between literacy and education, populace is vulnerable to demagogues calling for change.

THEREFORE
Some benign regimes may be toppled by increasing literacy.

or

2. Some benign regimes may be toppled by increasing literacy.

THEREFORE
In the interim between literacy and education, populace is vulnerable to demagogues calling for change.




You can also think of it as a "Why?" question and choose the best arrangement:

1. Why might the regimes be toppled? Because the ppl are vulnerable to demagogues calling for change.

2. Why is the population vulnerable to demagogues calling for change? Because some benign regimes might be toppled by increasing literacy.

Which ones makes more logical sense?
I'd say #1 in both cases, and thus the "Consequently..." sentence is the main conclusion.

[sissixz]

Well, thanks for clearing up.

That helps a lot.

[goriano]

(E) out of scope. Note that our conclusion is that SOME benign regimes MAY be toppled. We need not make assumptions about ANY ("all") benign regime(s) actually BEING toppled.

My gut instinct was to eliminate (E) immediately because the question asked for a necessary assumption, and (E) is a sufficient assumption. However, I remember reading on a couple other threads in which the LSAT Geeks have cited instances where the necessary assumption functioned just like a sufficient assumption. These tended to be the "mathematical" types were

P: A --> B
C: A --> C

and the necessary assumption (B --> C) functioned just like a sufficient one.

So although I wanted to immediately cross (E) off during my first pass at the answer choices, I hesitated and wasted a bit of time. Perhaps this is more a question about LSAT strategy, but I'd just like to know whether it is "safe" to do such a thing on a first pass given that the LSAT has not been consistent in the past. Thanks!

[bbirdwell]

I'm not sure what you're asking -- I'm not aware of the LSAT being inconsistent.

There are three kinds of assumptions:
1. necessary
2. sufficient
3. sufficient AND necessary

On a necessary assumption question, there will not be answer choices of both 1 and 3. There will only be one or the other.

In the example you cited:
P: A-->B
C: A-->C

"B-->C" is not a necessary assumption. It is merely sufficient.

[gmatalongthewatchtower]

MLSAT Team,
I am not able to understand the role of the first sentence in the argument. If literacy enables people to distinguish between true reformers and opportunists, then what's the role of interim between literacy and education? Essentially, in the interim, people will be able to distinguish bad guys from good guys. Correct?

[gmatalongthewatchtower]

any help? I am still waiting for a response...thanks

[acechaowang]

HI, the first sentence is a background informaton. Also, E is a sufficient condition for the argument to be true.

[WaltGrace1983]

Here was my thought process:

Literacy emerges before education
-->
In the interim, people are vulnerable to demagogues calling for change
-->
Some relatively benign regimes may be toppled by increasing literature

This argument seems to be assuming that education is significant to vulnerability. In other words, the author is saying that without education, one is vulnerable.

(A) If no education, then demagogue can never topple an existing regime. This would actually run contrary to the argument, as the argument implies that ~education is actually a GOOD thing for the demagogues and that ~education HELPS the demagogues topple regimes. Also, "never" is very strong. Eliminate.

(B) This is playing on background information. Eliminate.

(C) "Any" is much too strong. We know what happens when ~education (populace is vulnerable to clever demagogues) but we don't know (and don't need to know) what happens when education is present. Eliminate.

(D) Correct! If we negate it then we get "A lack of general education does not affect ability to differentiate between good/bad calls for reform." If this is true, then why would the author claim anything about vulnerability from the basis of ~education?

(E) It doesn't need to be ANY benign regime. The argument merely says that "they may ironically be toppled." Eliminate.

As you can see, there are a lot of REALLY strong words in the wrong answers (never, no, any, etc.) and the right answer, (D), is much softer.

[JoschuaKlein]

Hello,

I just wanted to add a concern that prevented me from seeing (D) as the correct answer choice and hope someone can tell me what my mistake is:

I did not equalize the absence of a "comprehensive system of general education" from the stimulus with a lack of "general education" from answer choice (D), because I thought that one can still have plenty of general education without a comprehensive system of general education being in place, and what contributes to the vulnerability to clever demagogues might as well be something else, e.g. absence of propaganda conveyed by a such a comprehensive system or the conservative tendencies it may sustain etc.

That being said (or thought), I am not sure why the argument depends on the ability of a lack of general education to differentiate rather than merely on a "comprehensive system of general education".

Thank you in advance!

[ohthatpatrick]

I think there IS a distinction, as you're pointing out.

But, as much as this may sound like a cop out:
1. correct answers aren't always perfect
2. is there a better answer?

Unfortunately, finding the "credited response" sometimes involves using those ideas. To LSAT, a correct answer is fine as long as most high scorers find their way there (they may have to do a little mind-reading of what the test writer was going for in order to get there).

When you see "Item removed from scoring", that means that high scorers did not settle on the correct answer in high enough numbers for LSAT to be convinced that it is a fair, winnable question.

Do you think that lacking a comprehensive system of general education suggests that you are "not maxed out" when it comes to general education?

If so, we can say that even though you can have general ed w/o having a comprehensive system, it's still true that lacking a comprehensive system represents SOME lack of maximal general ed.

Why does the author think we can go from:
"First you have literacy .... only later do you have C.S.G.E. Thus, in the meantime, you're vulnerable to clever demagogues."

He must think that having a CSGE is relevant to how vulnerable we are to demagogues (vulnerable to demagogues = unable to differentiate between legit and illegit calls for reform)