Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does not promote political freedom. There are historical examples of democracies that ultimately resulted in some of the most oppressive societies. Likewise, there have been enlightened despotisms and oligarchies that have provided a remarkable level of political freedom to their subjects.
The reasoning in the political scientist’s argument is flawed because it
confuses the conditions necessary for political freedom with the conditions sufficient to bring it about
fails to consider that a substantial increase in the level of political freedom might cause a society to become more democratic
appeals to historical examples that are irrelevant to the causal claim being made
overlooks the possibility that democracy promotes political freedom without being necessary or sufficient by itself to produce it
bases its historical case on a personal point of view
STOP after reading the passage and make sure you understand it. Take it one sentence at a time if you need, putting it in your own words.
Ok, so this guy says democracy doesn’t promote political freedom. That’s his claim, so I’m looking for him to prove it to me. I am assuming that his claim is bullshit, so he must convince me. He then says that some democracies have become oppressive, and some other systems have provided political freedom.
Ok, so his evidence for the claim that “democracy doesn’t promote political freedom” is that some democratic societies don’t provide freedom and some societies using other systems do. That doesn’t make sense. Democracy could generally promote political freedom without it manifesting in every single case, and whether other systems promote political freedom is irrelevant. This guy is thinking that just because democracy doesn’t always guarantee freedom from oppression and that other systems provide political freedom, democracy doesn’t promote it at all. BS argument. Let’s look at the question.
Ok, it’s asking me to identify the flaw.
Answer 1. There isn’t a confusion of necessary/sufficient happening here. There is no condition listed as necessary (needs to happen for political freedom to happen) or as sufficient (will always bring about political freedom). The argument is just that democracy doesn’t promote it because sometimes it fails and sometimes it works using other systems. NEXT
Answer 2. This has nothing to do with the claim that democracy doesn’t promote political freedom because of the reasons given. A politically free society could progress towards democracy regardless of whether democracy will continue that political freedom. It just doesn’t negate the argument. NEXT
Answer 3. …What causal claim? The argument is that democracy doesn’t promote political freedom. NEXT
Answer 4. Exactly what I was thinking. Like we said earlier, “democracy could generally promote political freedom without it manifesting in every case.” This is the answer.
5. What?
Journalist: To reconcile the need for profits sufficient to support new drug research with the moral imperative to provide medicines to those who most need them but cannot afford them, some pharmaceutical companies feel justified in selling a drug in rich nations at one price and in poor nations at a much lower price. But this practice is unjustified. A nation with a low average income may still have a substantial middle class better able to pay for new drugs than are many of the poorer citizens of an overall wealthier nation.
Ok, this guy says we need money for drug research but also need to provide medicine to people who can’t afford them. Because of this, some drug companies think it’s ok to charge people of rich nations more than people of poor nations. This guy claims it is actually not ok, because a low-average-income nation could have a big middle class who could more easily pay higher prices than the poor people of a rich nation. Is that the case though? Idk. To the question…
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the journalist’s reasoning?
People who are ill deserve more consideration than do healthy people, regardless of their relative socioeconomic positions.
Wealthy institutions have an obligation to expend at least some of their resources to assist those incapable of assisting themselves.
Whether one deserves special consideration depends on one’s needs rather than on characteristics of the society to which one belongs.
The people in wealthy nations should not have better access to health care than do the people in poorer nations.
Unequal access to health care is more unfair than an unequal distribution of wealth.
Ok, we’re being asked to pick which of these answers would make that guy’s conclusion valid (remember his conclusion was that charging rich nations more is bad)
Answer 1. The passage says nothing about who is and isn’t actually ill. Irrelevant. Next.
Answer 2. Are the drug companies mentioned here “wealthy institutions”? IDK. Would this being true have much to do with the practice of raising prices in rich counties? What if those in poorer countries are actually more incapable? I have too many questions. Next.
Answer 3. Well, yes. If it is true that special consideration depends not on the society’s characteristics, such as average income, but on needs, such as ability to pay… that is exactly what the claim was. This must be the answer.
Answer 4. How would this justify this guy’s claim that poorer nations shouldn’t be charged less than richer ones based on average income? Next.
Answer 5. Ok? We aren’t concerned with whether not having access to health care or to wealth is more unfair. This is about whether charging poor countries less is wrong, this doesn’t prove that.
Several critics have claimed that any contemporary poet who writes formal poetry—poetry that is rhymed and metered—is performing a politically conservative act. This is plainly false. Consider Molly Peacock and Marilyn Hacker, two contemporary poets whose poetry is almost exclusively formal and yet who are themselves politically progressive feminists.
This passage says that while several critics claim that a contemporary poet writing formal poetry is a “politically conservative act,” they are wrong. Evidenced by, it says, two contemporary poets who write formal poetry but are progressive feminists. The conclusion is that contemporary poets writing formal poetry isn’t necessarily a conservative act.
Immediately, I’m thinking, how does this action being performed by two feminists prove your claim that the action isn’t conservative? Can someone not be a feminist and still engage in a conservative act? Let’s look at the question.
The conclusion drawn above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
No one who is a feminist is also politically conservative.
No poet who writes unrhymed or unmetered poetry is politically conservative.
No one who is politically progressive is capable of performing a politically conservative act.
Anyone who sometimes writes poetry that is not politically conservative never writes poetry that is politically conservative.
The content of a poet’s work, not the work’s form, is the most decisive factor in determining what political consequences, if any, the work will have.
Ok, it’s asking us to pick the answer that would make the conclusion valid.
Answer 1. Ok, but still, it didn’t say they ARE conservative, just that the action is. This changes nothing
Answer 2. We’re talking about poets who did write that kind of poetry. Whether those who didn’t are conservative is irrelevant.
Answer 3. Now THIS ties it all up. Those two poets are progressive. If it is true that no progressive person is capable of a conservative act, then the act of formal poetry must not be conservative, because they were doing it. This answers the question I had earlier, “Can someone not be a feminist and still engage in a conservative act?”
Answer 4. This just has nothing to do with whether the act of writing formal poetry is conservative.
Answer 5. Nor does this, at all. Political consequences? Huh?