Ok I understand why the correct answer is correct, but I answered D based on the idea that "making the government trustworthy of acting in the best interest of the public" could constitute a fundamental change of the sort that Arnot proposes.
After all, whether or not a government could be trusted to act in the best interests of the public is a quality of government which could fundamentally change, is it not? So in my view, the author distorts Arnots argument by ignoring that actually the trustworthiness of government cannot be one of the possible fundamental changes.
We don't get any details about what arnots proposed changes actually are, just that they would be fundamental.
So I read the authors argument as the government cannot change because it cannot change.
Am I totally off base here? Have I explained my thinking well enough?
5
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
Ok I understand why the correct answer is correct, but I answered D based on the idea that "making the government trustworthy of acting in the best interest of the public" could constitute a fundamental change of the sort that Arnot proposes.
After all, whether or not a government could be trusted to act in the best interests of the public is a quality of government which could fundamentally change, is it not? So in my view, the author distorts Arnots argument by ignoring that actually the trustworthiness of government cannot be one of the possible fundamental changes.
We don't get any details about what arnots proposed changes actually are, just that they would be fundamental.
So I read the authors argument as the government cannot change because it cannot change.
Am I totally off base here? Have I explained my thinking well enough?