This is a pretty tough question. Hopefully, you're well trained by now to always separate premises from conclusions.
This passage makes you work for it. The first sentence is a premise:
selfish --> /gov't by consent
The second sentence contains a conclusion followed by "since" and another premise:
/gov't by consent --> /democracy
Forget the conclusion for now. Let's just piece together the premises.
selfish --> /gov't by consent --> /democracy
What conclusion can you validly draw? This one:
selfish --> /democracy
What conclusion do they draw?
B(selfish) --> B(/democracy)
Sort of. They make a small assumption [/democracy --> futile to aspire to democracy]. Anyway, this is a tiny assumption and reasonable too, so let's concede this point.
Besides, they committed a huge logical error.
If I tell you that Tommy is 3 years old and just formed a new belief that this delicious object he's eating is called "banana". Can you conclude that Tommy believes that this object is a fruit? That's reasonable isn't it since banana --> fruit?
Well, that depends on whether Tommy knows that conditional relationship holds. Tommy just learned "banana". Who knows if he understands that "banana" is a sub-set of this other thing called "fruit".
Now imagine things more complex than "banana" and "fruit" and you'll see that this applies to all of us. We don't know all the logical relationships that exist. X --> Y may be true, but if we are unaware of that truth, our knowing X doesn't imply our knowing Y.
Anyway, this is not the first time that you've seen this exact error on the LSAT. Plenty of questions before this one committed similar errors.
This is a pretty tough question. Hopefully, you're well trained by now to always separate premises from conclusions.
This passage makes you work for it. The first sentence is a premise:
selfish --> /gov't by consent
The second sentence contains a conclusion followed by "since" and another premise:
/gov't by consent --> /democracy
Forget the conclusion for now. Let's just piece together the premises.
selfish --> /gov't by consent --> /democracy
What conclusion can you validly draw? This one:
selfish --> /democracy
What conclusion do they draw?
B(selfish) --> B(/democracy)
Sort of. They make a small assumption [/democracy --> futile to aspire to democracy]. Anyway, this is a tiny assumption and reasonable too, so let's concede this point.
Besides, they committed a huge logical error.
If I tell you that Tommy is 3 years old and just formed a new belief that this delicious object he's eating is called "banana". Can you conclude that Tommy believes that this object is a fruit? That's reasonable isn't it since banana --> fruit?
Well, that depends on whether Tommy knows that conditional relationship holds. Tommy just learned "banana". Who knows if he understands that "banana" is a sub-set of this other thing called "fruit".
Now imagine things more complex than "banana" and "fruit" and you'll see that this applies to all of us. We don't know all the logical relationships that exist. X --> Y may be true, but if we are unaware of that truth, our knowing X doesn't imply our knowing Y.
Anyway, this is not the first time that you've seen this exact error on the LSAT. Plenty of questions before this one committed similar errors.