Necessary, because if it were not true — if examining an individual leader’s personal flaws DOES reveal something about how the nation’s institutions and procedures influence the selection of leaders — then we have no reason to think that it’s “pointless” to put attention on the flaws of our leaders. Understanding those flaws can help us answer what the author calls the “real question that needs answering.”

Not necessary, because the author’s argument doesn’t involve a prediction about what kinds of discussions will become more common in the future.

Not necessary, because the author never suggests that “only” flawed people come to power or that our institutions and procedures “ensure” that flawed people come to power. The argument’s reasoning isn’t undermined if it turns out that some of our leaders are not flawed. The author would still say that it’s pointless to focus attention on the flaws of the leaders who are flawed.

Not necessary, because the author’s argument doesn’t rely on any claims about what people have tried to do in the past.

Not necessary, because the author’s argument doesn’t rely on any claim that concerns the feelings of our nation’s leaders.