Conclusion Large inequalities in wealth always threaten the viability of true democracy, since Support wealth is the basis of political power, and Support true democracy depends on the equal distribution of political power among all citizens.
The argument concludes that large wealth inequalities always threaten true democracy. This is because true democracy requires an equal distribution of political power, and political power is based on wealth. This is a valid argument. Also notice that the argument relies heavily on sufficient-necessary relationships, so we can diagram for a clearer understanding:
P1: true democracy → equal distributionpolitical power
P2: political power → wealth
chain: true democracy → equal distributionpolitical power → equal distributionwealth
______
C: /equal distributionwealth → /true democracy
The correct answer choice will give an argument that mirrors the essential elements of the stimulus. This means it will have two premises that can be chained together, which lead to a conclusion reflecting the contrapositive of the chain as a whole. In other words, the premises will tell us that A requires B, and B requires C. The conclusion will say that if we don't have C, we also won't have A.
The reasoning in which one ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ████ ███████ █████████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
Consumer culture and ██ ████████ ██ █████████████ ██████████ ███ █ █████████ ████████████ █████ ████████ ████ ███ ██████████████ ███ ████ ██ ██████████ ███████
(A) talks about two elements that combine to produce danger, which does not mirror the stimulus. The stimulus instead constructs a chain of conditions to show that one circumstance could threaten another circumstance.
P1: consumer culture AND innovation emphasis → uncontrollable AND irrational excess
______
C: consumer culture AND innovation emphasis → danger
If Sara went ██ ███ █████████ █████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ████ █████ █████ ████ ██████ █████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ █████████ █████ █████ ███ ███ ████ ███ ████ ███ ███████ ████ ██████████
Unlike the stimulus, (B) doesn't give us broad conditional statements, but rather more of a cause-and-effect argument. There's no conditional chain that arises from Sara's love of expensive books.
It is very █████████ ██ █████ █ ██████████ ███████ ███████ █████ ████ ██ ███ ██ ███ █████ █████ ██████████ ███████ ███████ ██ ██████████ █████████ ███████ ███████ ███████ ████ ████
Here we have a contrast between two ideas which shows us it's difficult to combine those ideas. That's distinct from the conditional chain that the stimulus builds and takes the contrapositive of.
Honesty is important ██ ███████████ ████████████ ███ █████████ ███████ ███ ████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██ ██ █████████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████ █ ██████████ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ██ █ ███████████
Where the stimulus sets up a conditional chain, and takes that chain's contrapositive as a conclusion, (D) shows two possible outcomes of an action. That's a distinct form of argument
P1: maintain friendships → honesty
P2: honesty -sometimes→ arguments
______
C: honestydifficult to predict
Repeated encroachments on ███████ ███████ ████ ██ █ █████████ ███ █████████ ████ ███ ████████████ ██ ████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ██████ ███████ ██ ███████ ████████ █████████ ███ ████████ ███████ ████ ██ █████████ ██ ███████ █████████
(E) gives us two conditional premises that we can chain together. The conclusion then takes the contrapositive of the entire chain. Breaking down (E) to its essential elements, we can see that it matches the stimulus.
P1: good health → regular exercise
P2: regular exercise → leisure time
chain: good health → regular exercise → leisure time
______
C: /leisure time → /good health