Q11 - For a democracy to survive

[oscey12]

I was split between choices B and C. C seems like a valid inference, but is it incorrect because it doesn't "follow" as well as B? I thought "threatened" was a bit strong, but it also seems more consequentially valid over option C. Is that the big difference?

[rinagoldfield]

Thanks for your question oscey12!

Words like “imperative” and “must” indicate that conditional logic is being tested here. Before diving into the answer choices, it is important to chain the givens as conditional statements. Here is what we know:

democracy survives --> Average citizen develops opinions on important issues --> Average citizen develops opinions on scientific subjects.

.

The contrapositive of this is:

No scientific opinions --> no opinions --> democracy will not survive

.

We also know that today, modern science has advanced past what the average citizen can absorb. As a result, the average citizen CANNOT develop opinions on important scientific issues.

This fits right into the contrapositive of the original chain. It follows that democracy is threatened by these scientific advances, and will not survive.

(B) is supported – it “follows” the logic chain outlined by the stimulus.
(A) and (C) bring in duty. Duty was never defined, described, or mandated by the original statements.
(D) talks about the MOST EFFECTIVE democracy. This is unsupported. The question is concerned with the SURVIVAL of democracy, not its effectiveness.
(E) reverses the logic of the original chain.

Hope this helps!

[oscey12]

Couldn't have explained it better!! Thank you that makes so much sense now!

[klinepk]

Hello,

I have a question about the wording here. I chose correctly the first time through, but during a blind review, I second guessed myself and chose E.

My confusion rests on the distinction between "citizens must be able to develop informed opinions on many scientific subjects, from ecosystems to defense systems." And "the average citizen is increasingly unable to absorb enough information to develop informed opinions on many important issues."

Answer Choice B states "The survival of democracy is threatened by the advance of scientific knowledge."

But to me, because the advance of scientific knowledge has only been shown to make the average citizen increasingly unable to absorb enough information to develop informed opinions on many important issues, B and scientific knowledge threatening the survival of democracy does not seem to logically follow. Isn't it possible that it prevents citizens from developing informed opinions on issues but which are not policy related or scientific, as specified earlier in the prompt?

I can see that B is the best answer. E doesn't work because it states that democracy will survive if there are citizens with knowledge, but that doesn't follow. It's merely a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.

Any advice for someone stuck on the wording here? Am I missing something obvious?

Thanks!

[KarissaS924]

I chose B but I felt it was strong. I did not write out the logic chain for it but I think it is most supported by the passage.

I was really tempted by E. The problem I had with E was that the stimulus discusses the average citizen while E just says some citizens. It also somewhat shifts the terms from "must be able to develop informed opinions" and "unable to absorb enough information to develop informed opinions" to citizens who are capable of developing informed opinions. I don't know if those terms are interchangeable from the stimulus.