PrepTest 40, Section 2, Question 16
In countries where government officials are neither selected by free elections nor open to criticism by a free press, the lives of citizens are controlled by policies they have had no role in creating. This is why such countries are prone to civil disorder, in spite of the veneer of calm such countries often present to a visitor. When people do not understand the purpose of the restrictions placed on their behavior they have a greater tendency to engage in civil disorder as an expression of their frustration.
In countries where government officials are neither selected by free elections nor open to criticism by a free press, the lives of citizens are controlled by policies they have had no role in creating. This is why such countries are prone to civil disorder, in spite of the veneer of calm such countries often present to a visitor. When people do not understand the purpose of the restrictions placed on their behavior they have a greater tendency to engage in civil disorder as an expression of their frustration.
In countries where government officials are neither selected by free elections nor open to criticism by a free press, the lives of citizens are controlled by policies they have had no role in creating. This is why such countries are prone to civil disorder, in spite of the veneer of calm such countries often present to a visitor. When people do not understand the purpose of the restrictions placed on their behavior they have a greater tendency to engage in civil disorder as an expression of their frustration.
In countries where government officials are neither selected by free elections nor open to criticism by a free press, the lives of citizens are controlled by policies they have had no role in creating. This is why such countries are prone to civil disorder, in spite of the veneer of calm such countries often present to a visitor. When people do not understand the purpose of the restrictions placed on their behavior they have a greater tendency to engage in civil disorder as an expression of their frustration.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
People who have had a role in making the laws that govern their own behavior act more rationally than those who have not.
A free press is better able to convey to citizens the purpose of government policy than is a press controlled by the government.
Civil disorder cannot be prevented by security forces alone, however great the powers granted them by the government.
People tend not to understand the purpose of restrictions unless they participate in their formulation.
Civil disorder does not generally occur in countries that have either free elections or a free press.
Explanations
The passage argues that when folks don't understand the purpose of restrictions on their behavior, they tend to express frustration through civil disorder. Why? Because in countries prone to civil disorder—ones where government officials are neither freely elected nor criticized by a free press—the lives of citizens are controlled by policies the citizens had no role in making.
Loose argument at best. Notice the shift from no role in making policies to no understanding of said policies. I'd argue the citizens could still understand the policies, but the author clearly thinks that's not possible.
It turns out to be a necessary assumption question, so we need something the author has to agree with in order to conclude what they do.
I want something like, "Citizens don't understand restrictions they don't have a part in making."
Let's see.
No. Our author doesn't have to believe that people who participate in the legislative process behave more "rationally." That conflates rationality with civil order, and I don't know that the author would conflate those terms.
No, the author doesn't have to believe this. It's possible that a controlled press and a free press are equally capable of conveying policy purposes, but that controlled presses are simply more constrained by regulation. Imagine a clogged pipe and an unclogged pipe—both have the capacity to carry water through them, one just has something preventing it.
No, the author doesn't have to believe this. In fact, this might be the mechanism by which civil disorder is controlled. We didn't address the means of repressions, so I simply can't pick this answer.
Perfect! Let's try the negation test: If people DO tend to understand the purpose of restrictions even if they aren't involved in their creation, then how could we conclude that when they don't understand them, they tend toward civil disorder because they don't understand them? This is the answer. Our author must believe this to make their conclusion.
No chance. Our author doesn't have to believe that civil disorder doesn't generally happen in countries with either free elections or free press.
0 Comments