PT44.S4.Q8 - Insurgent political parties that are profoundly

akistotleakistotle Member ⭐ 🍌🍌
edited May 2018 in Logical Reasoning 9382 karma

I couldn't pick any of the answer choices in PT44.S4.Q8. Can someone clarify if my understanding is ok?

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-4-question-08/

[Stimulus]
Premises:
1) Insurgent parties that are dissatisfied with the status quo ---> create factions with different views.
2) Factions' views differ as much from each other's as they do from the ruling party.
3) The factions ignore their disagreements in order to overthrow the ruling party, but then, their disagreements will alway come forward once they gain power.

Conclusion: Therefore, ________.

(B): Insurgent parties are to stay in power ---> address disagreements

(B) talks about "to stay in power" which is not mentioned in the stimulus. We don't know what the party needs to stay in power.

I don't know how we can infer that since factions within the party are as different from each other as they are from the ruling party, they can't stay in power unless they address disagreements.

I don't know why we must assume [staying in power] requires [not having disagreements within the party].

Even if Faction A in Party X is ideologically closer to Party Y and Faction A disagrees with Faction B in Party X on many issues, maybe these factions (A and B ) need the money Party X provides.

For example, the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, which had a number of factions with different ideologies, had stayed in power for more than five decades (1955-1993). During that period, some factions within the party had closer ideologies with other parties. Disagreements came forward. Factions fought against each other in the same constituency. But even though they had brief interruptions, it is still the ruling party.

Comments

  • GrecoRomanGrecoRoman Alum Member
    140 karma

    I think you are just judging B too harshly as if it's a MSS question or similar. While it's true that nothing is mentioned about staying in power, that doesn't really matter for this question. We just need a sentence that makes sense given the context of the passage. The last sentence is setting the stage for disagreements becoming a problem so we need something that addresses the issue of the problems, which B does.

  • akistotleakistotle Member ⭐ 🍌🍌
    9382 karma

    @"work all week" said:
    I think you are just judging B too harshly as if it's a MSS question or similar. While it's true that nothing is mentioned about staying in power, that doesn't really matter for this question. We just need a sentence that makes sense given the context of the passage. The last sentence is setting the stage for disagreements becoming a problem so we need something that addresses the issue of the problems, which B does.

    You are right; I think I did approach this question as a MSS question. It makes sense now. Compared to other ACs, (B) is the best one to choose.

    Thank you :smiley:

  • hon132hon132 Free Trial Member
    edited June 2017 122 karma

    Well, by taking out the other answers, you see the issue.Your premise look pretty good. I haven't take this PT yet but looked at the question and got the same.

    (A) starts with "No party", nothing about this questions implies an absolute
    (E) by that logic does the same with "impossible".
    (D) is plausible in real life but the stimulus only mention an Insurgent parties and their conflicts, nothing about the current party. There's no guarantee they will oppose once they lost, they could easily have issues of their own.
    (C), the phrase "will not always promulgate a new ideology" creates an issue. Did the article mention why a new ideology may or may be not needed? No. At most, the Stimulus introduces an issue but no reasoning for any particular solution. (B) doesn't address a solution, only mentions a requirement.

    So (B), what would happen if they didn't do this? Notice, these aren't just disagreements, they're disagreement issues that varies in the same gravity as the disagreements with the ruling party. What would keep a faction from breaking? What would keep voters from not supporting another one? Wouldn't the same issue pop up? Disagreements that remain may cause parties to fragment like before. It's an assumption to believe the disagreements would lead to "profound dissatisfaction" but not too much of a stretch and it adds the benefit of bring the entire paragraph into a loop.

    Your example has some issues, even though the factions fought, that doesn't mean their problems were never addressed. If anything, like (B), it was a necessity for the party to survive so long.

  • akistotleakistotle Member ⭐ 🍌🍌
    9382 karma

    Thank you, @hon132 for your detailed explanation!

    Your example has some issues, even though the factions fought, that doesn't mean their problems were never addressed.

    I think that even if they never address the issue of disagreement, it is possible to stay in power. In case of the LDP in Japan, I believe that they were ousted of power briefly precisely because they addressed issue and there were no conflicts between factions anymore. I think some parties do manage to stay in power despite deep divisions within the party. Voters don't usually vote logically.

    I am definitely overthinking here. lol

    Anyways, I know that the task here isn't to weaken the argument but to figure out which one logically completes the argument, so I guess (B) works the best.

  • lsat_novicelsat_novice Member
    18 karma

    For this question, I picked B but am having a hard time totally dismissing C. C says that the victorious party will not always promulgate a new ideology. This seems to make sense based on what the stimulus says... the stimulus says that insurgent parties always produce factions whose views are fractured. With so many different factions, it makes sense that the victorious political party wouldn't be able to agree on a new ideology.

    The only reason that I might dismiss C is because C says that the victorious party establishes new policies. If they were truly divided, I imagine they wouldn't be able to agree on new policies.

Sign In or Register to comment.