PT116.S3.Q12 > Question

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

PASSAGE 2

Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27 Question 28

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

The author concludes that the fact policymakers don’t stick to principles when dealing with important issues, and shift policies as they try to please different people, is a good thing rather than a bad thing.

Why?

Because that kind of behavior allows a democracy to adapt more easily and serve public interest.

The author assumes that adaptability of a democracy is a benefit.

The author assumes that the benefit from greater adaptability outweighs the harm from having policymakers not sticking to principles.

Not necessary, because the argument concerns “attaining” government power, which is not the same as “retaining” power. One is about getting power, the other is about keeping power.

The argument never compares democracies to nondemocracies.

Necessary, because if this were not true — if the advantage created by adaptability to public interests does NOT outweigh the harm associated with lack of sticking to principles — then we don’t have any reason to think that the policymakers’ lack of sticking to principles is more of a benefit than a harm. We’d have reason to think that it’s more harmful than beneficial.

Not necessary, because although the argument refers to policymakers who try to please different constituents to build majority coalitions, that doesn’t imply any specific requiremetnts about when they appeal principle and when they don’t. Maybe they can sometimes appeal to principle even if that principle doesn’t have majority support, because the minority that supports the principle cares more about that principle, and the people who don’t support it don’t care as much.

PrepTest 116 - Section 3 - Question 12

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action