A lack of general education affects the ability to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate
Why this is right
The argument made it sound like a lack of general education will leave the populace vulnerable to clever demagogues calling for change. Is that connected to our ability to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate calls for reform? Yes, if we get conversational with it. This answer is frustrating for anyone trying to assemble the formal logic to this argument, but a demagogue is a "mere opportunist", not a true reformer. The concept of demagoguery (its dictionary meaning) is to sort of rile up the anger of the public in a disingenuous way in order to gain power. Demagogues play off of people's prejudices and fears. They don't make genuine policy suggests for reform. The author had acknowledged that literacy, in the right circumstances (apparently, with a comprehensive system of general education in place) leads to an increased capacity to see through a demagogue's act: "You're not a true reformer. You're just an opportunist." But the author seemed worried that widespread literacy would happen before there was general education in place, and that a lack of general education would leave people vulnerable to demagogues. So the author must have been thinking that you don't get the "increased capacity to distinguish true reformers from mere opportunists" simply in virtue of having widespread literacy. The existence or lack of general education affects the population's capacity to differentiate between the two. If we negated this answer, it would say that "a lack of general education has nothing to do with people's ability to differentiate between legit and illegitimate calls for reform. That would weaken the argument, because it would make it seem like lacking a system of general education isn't a bad thing, when it comes to vulnerability to demagogues.
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.