Self-study
Chapin: Commentators have noted with concern the recent electoral success by extremist parties in several democratic countries. ███ █████ █████████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ████ ███ ████████████ ███ ███████████ ████████████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ████████ ███████ ████ ███████████ ████ ███████ █████ ███████████
Summary
Chapin concludes that the recent electoral success by extremist parties in several democratic countries poses no threat to democracy in those countries because the extremists have won pluralities, not majorities, and have only won when the moderate parties were preoccupied with arguing amongst themselves.
Missing Connection
The conclusion is that the success of extremist parties poses no threat to democracy in some democratic countries, but the premises say nothing about democracy.
How to get from premises to conclusion? Based on the premises, we know that these extremist parties have only won pluralities, not majorities, and have only won when the moderate parties were arguing amongst themselves. We can properly draw Chapin’s conclusion if we assume that when extremist parties only win pluralities, not majorities, or when extremist parties win while the moderate parties are arguing amongst themselves, these extremist parties don’t threaten democracy.
4.
Which one of the following, ██ ████████ ███████ ████████ ██████████ ██ ██ ████████ ██████
a
Parties that win ███████████ ███ ███ ██████████ █████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ███████ ██ █████ █████████ █████████ █████████████
When parties only win pluralities, not majorities, those parties don’t effect change in their country’s political arrangements. Therefore, the victories of the extremist parties Chapin discusses pose no threat to democracy in their countries. (A) validates Chapin’s conclusion.
b
Multiparty political systems ███ ██████ ████ ██████████ ████ █████████ █████████ ███████ ████
Chapin doesn’t differentiate between multiparty and two-party political systems. Chapin only argues that the victories of the extremist parties in his argument pose no threat to democracy in their countries. (B) is irrelevant.
c
Countries in which █████████ ███████ ███ ███████████ █████████ ████ ██████████ ███████████ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ██ █████████ ████ ████ █████████ ████████
Chapin’s argument is about specific countries where extremist parties have recently won elections. It’s not clear whether or not (C) is even discussing the countries in Chapin’s argument, so (C) is irrelevant.
d
Members of moderate ███████ ███ ████████ █████████ ███████ ██ ██ █ ███████ ██████ ██ █████████ ████ █████████ ███ █████ █████ ███████████ ████ ████ █████ ██ ██████ █████
Chapin only discusses countries where moderate parties were preoccupied with arguing among themselves, so (D) is irrelevant.
e
People are not ██████ ██████████ █ ████ ██████ ██ █████████ ██████████ ████ ████ ████ ███ █████████ ███████ ██ ██████████ ██████████
The reason people support extremist parties is irrelevant. Chapin’s argument is only concerned with whether the recent electoral success by extremist parties in several democratic countries poses a threat to democracy in those countries. (E) is irrelevant.