Q21 - Political scientist: As a political

[joyce.hau]

I was down to A and D but became confused as to the subtle differences between the two. Can someone help me spell out the differences between the 2 choices? It seems like both answer options talk about democracy being either a necessary or sufficient condition of political freedom.

Thanks!!

[bbirdwell]

The difference in the choices reflect a key part of the argument.

The argument's conclusion is that democracy does not promote freedom. This is because there have been democracies that resulted in (produced) oppression. Also, some non-democracies provided freedom.

An analogy would be to conclude that I do not promote green technology because I have not created green technology.

It all hinges on the distinct concepts of promotion/creation.

(D) basically raises the question: "What if democracy promotes freedom without producing it?"

(A) is off the mark. This argument makes no claims about what is sufficient or necessary to produce freedom.

[schwingrocker]

Is B completely irrelevant because we are talking about democracy specifically not being a CAUSE for freedom in the stimulus?

[Alvanith.law]

I guess the author actually hinges on the necessary condition and the sufficient condition of the political freedom.

C: democracy does not promote political freedom.
P1: some democracies did not result in political freedom.
P2: some non-democracies did provide political freedom.

P1 implies that democracy is not the sufficient condition of the political freedom.
P2 implies democracy is not the necessary condition of the political freedom.
These two premises might lead to the conclusion that democracy is not required nor can guarantee the political freedom. But it does not preclude the possibility that democracy could promote political freedom without being the necessary or sufficient condition of it.

The author does not confuse the necessary condition with sufficient condition. The author just goes too far.

So A is wrong and D is correct.

[yuzichao5201314]

i may kno what's wrong with A
in stimuli ,we know oligarch and despotism also provide freedom, so democracy can not be necessary condition as stated in A

[hayleychen12]

As a non-native speaker, I get really confused whenever encountering this kind of statement in A.

Can anyone help me with the structure: mistake(confuse) sufficient/necessary for necessary/sufficient? Any explicit example would be be appreciated

[vstoever]

As a non-native speaker, I get really confused whenever encountering this kind of statement in A.

Can anyone help me with the structure: mistake(confuse) sufficient/necessary for necessary/sufficient? Any explicit example would be be appreciated

Hi Hayley:

Here is an example of confusing necessary for sufficient:
The grass needs water to be green. Therefore, anytime there is water, the grass will be green.

(sufficient) grass is green --> (necessary) grass gets water
Therefore,
(sufficient) grass gets water-->(necessary) grass is green.

I just made that up but you can see how it confuses or switches what is necessary for what is sufficient. You can't switch them. Just because grass needs water to be green doesn't mean it doesn't also need other necessary conditions to be sufficient (sun, good manure, etc)



To add to why D is right, democracy is not necessary (not always NEEDED for political freedom) OR sufficient (won't always RESULT in political freedom). Nevertheless, it could still PROMOTE it.

[EarlC764]

Hi there. I'm still a bit confused on this one. I don't understand why B can easily be eliminated.

I've read that this can be viewed as an usual type of causation flaw. If that's the case, why can't we ask "Could the reverse be true"?

Answer B stated the reverse, and since this could be a causation flaw, I thought it was an attractive answer. When do we know when to ask the question, "could the reverse be true?"