Logical Reasoning

PT110 · S3 · Q5 Columnist: A democratic society cannot

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Columnist: A democratic society cannot exist unless its citizens have established strong bonds of mutual trust.

Conclusion (it is obvious then)

Widespread reliance on movies and electronic media for entertainment has an inherently corrosive effect on democracy.

Evidence

Democracy requires that citizens have strong bonds of mutual trust.

Such bonds require participation in civic organizations, political parties, and other groups outside the family.

Evaluate

We have a big New Concept in the Conclusion. It's claiming something about , but the argument provides no information about movies, electronic media, or our reliance on the two.

So the correct answer will almost definitely be stating whatever it is the author is assuming about "reliance on movies and electronic media for entertainment".

The first two sentences are both conditionals, and they have a common ingredient (bonds of trust), so we should suspect that these might chain together. Sure enough they do. We get:

Democratic → bonds of → participation in society trust non-family groups

Since the conclusion is talking about something corroding democracy, it would make more sense that the author is intending to use the contrapositive of this.

don't have don't have don't have participation in → bonds of → democratic non-family groups trust society

Goal

If the author must be assuming that when most of us start relying on movies and electronic media for entertainment, then we are less likely to participate in civic organizations / political parties / other non-family groups.

5.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the columnist's argument depends?

  1. Anyone who relies on movies

    Too Strong: unable

    If this were true, it would definitely strengthen if not prove the conclusion. But the author doesn't need to assume something this strong. She hasn't claimed that reliance on movies / electronic media renders democracy impossible. So she doesn't need to assume that if you're rely on movies / electronic media that you're unable to form a strong bond with others. It might just be that you're able but unwilling. Or it might just be that you're able but less likely to form such a bond. The author is only trying to argue that reliance on movies and electronic media degrades democracy, not that it renders it impossible.

    23% picked this

  2. Civic organizations cannot usefully advance

    Too Strong: cannot

    The fact that this answer doesn't include the New Concept (widespread reliance on movies and electronic media) makes it instantly unappealing. The author doesn't need to believe that it's impossible for civic organizations to usefully advance their goals by using electronic media. Even if they can do so, the author's argument would still be saying that "when people rely on movies / electronic media for entertainment, they participate less in non-family groups, so they have weaker bonds of mutual trust, so there is a corrosive effect on democracy".

    4% picked this

  3. Newspapers and other forms of

    Out of Scope: newspapers

    The fact that this answer doesn't include the New Concept (widespread reliance on movies and electronic media) makes it instantly unappealing. The author never said anything about newspapers, so we have no idea what she believes about them.

    1% picked this

  4. Correct

    Relying on movies and electronic

    Why this is right

    This was the Missing Link we anticipated. It connects the New Concept in the Conclusion to the trigger of the conditional chain. The author is envisioning this causal chain: 1. we rely on movies / e-media for entertainment 2. we participate less in non-family groups 3. we have weaker bonds of mutual trust 4. we weaken a required condition of democracy

    Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    71% picked this

  5. People who rely on movies

    Out of Scope: closer to families

    The only comparison the author is envisioning is that people who rely on movies and electronic media for entertainment are less likely to have strong bonds of mutual trust with fellow citizens (because they are less likely to participate in civic orgs, political parties, or other non-family groups. The author doesn't need to assume anything about what happens within a family.

    1% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free