Self-study
Support 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. ████ ██ ███ ████ █████████ ███ █████ ██ █████ █████████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ████ █████████ █████ ███████ ██ █ ████████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██████ ██ █████ ████████ ████ ████ █ ███████ ████████ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ████████████
Summary
The author concludes that tyrannical countries are prone to civil disorder because citizens play no role in shaping government policy. His reasoning is that, if people don’t understand the purpose of laws, they aren’t likely to obey them.
Notable Assumptions
The support refers to understanding the purpose of laws, but the conclusion refers to shaping laws. But understanding a law might not require having shaped it. For example, even if you had no opportunity to influence a speed limit law, you might still understand why it was enacted.
Therefore, the author must assume that, if you didn’t play a role in creating a law, you can’t understand it. (The contrapositive: If you can understand a law, you necessarily played a role in creating it.)
16.
Which one of the following ██ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ████████
a
People who have ███ █ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ██████ █████ ███ ████████ ███ ████ ██████████ ████ █████ ███ ████ ████
The author has no need to assume that citizens of democracies and tyrannies differ in rationality. He could very well believe that expressing frustration through civil disorder under tyranny is rational.
b
A free press ██ ██████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ████ ██ █ █████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████████
The author referred to the ability of the free press to openly criticize government policies, not to explain them.
c
Civil disorder cannot ██ █████████ ██ ████████ ██████ ██████ ███████ █████ ███ ██████ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ███████████
The author’s argument is about the risk factors for civil disorder. Even if security forces could prevent civil disorder, according to the author, tyrannies would be at more risk of disorder than democracies.
d
People tend not ██ ██████████ ███ ███████ ██ ████████████ ██████ ████ ███████████ ██ █████ ████████████
The negation is: People tend to understand the purpose of restrictions, even if they don’t participate in their creation. If so, the author’s argument is unsound. Citizens of tyrannies could understand the laws they live under, even if they play no role in creating them.
e
Civil disorder does ███ █████████ █████ ██ █████████ ████ ████ ██████ ████ █████████ ██ █ ████ ██████
The author’s argument is that tyranny makes civil disorder more likely. He doesn’t have to assume that democracies generally don’t have civil disorder. He could concede that they have some civil disorder, but maintain that disorder is more likely in tyrannies.