Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

PT33.S1.Q19-- historian: the spread of literacy

DarklordDarklord Alum Member
in Logical Reasoning 586 karma

This was a weird question because while A,B,C, and E all looked wrong, D looked ok but I just couldn't quite 100% understand why D was right. How were we supposed to know where demagogues place on the legitimate/illegitimate spectrum? Why is D right?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • KellersPhoenixKellersPhoenix Member
    55 karma

    Consider the negation, "a lack of general education does not affect the ability to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate calls for reform." Then, people with education would be just as vulnerable to clever demagogues as uneducated people.

    The Historian's argument follows literacy + education -> ability to distinguish, but literacy without education -> inability to distinguish.

    If negated D is true, education has no relationship to ability to distinguish. So literacy alone would be sufficient for ability to distinguish. This contradicts the historian's argument. Does that make sense?

  • DarklordDarklord Alum Member
    586 karma

    Hmm yes it does-- thanks!

Sign In or Register to comment.