Chapin: Commentators have noted with

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct73% picked this

   Parties that win pluralities but not majorities never directly or indirectly effect changes in their

   Why this is right

   This gives us a rule that says win plurality, ? never directly or indirectly not majority effect change in country's political arrangements We know that the extremist parties' recent successes involved winning pluralities, not majorities. So according to this rule, the extremist parties will not directly or indirectly effect change in their country's political arrangements. Does that, then, prove that these victories pose no threat to democracy? Sure. We have to use a little common sense / dictionary-logic to make that last link, but if you're "not directly or indirectly bringing about any change in your country's political arrangement" then you're not posing any threat to (the political arrangement of) democracy.

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

   73%
2. B

   Unrelated to Goal1% picked this

   Multiparty political systems are always more democratic than two-party political

   This answer doesn't give us any way to prove the idea of "pose no threat to democracy". The correct answer was a rule that output the idea of "pose no threat of directly or indirectly changing the political arrangement of the country". This answer has no language like that. This answer just allows us to prove which political system is more democratic.

   1%
3. C

   Too Weak: sometimes7% picked this

   Countries in which extremist parties win pluralities sometimes have democratic governments as strong as those in countries

   The word "some / sometimes" will usually be wrong on Sufficient Assumption, Strengthen, Weaken, and Paradox, because on those problems we're shopping for answers with maximum impact. This answer lets us know that it's possible that these countries where extremist parties won pluralities could have democratic governments as strong as in other countries. But we need an answer to prove that these recent victories pose no threat to democracy.

   7%
4. D

   Unrelated to Goal Too Weak: sometimes11% picked this

   Members of moderate parties who consider extremist parties to be a serious threat to democracy will sometimes put aside their differences with

   This answer doesn't give us any way to prove the idea of "pose no threat to democracy". The correct answer was a rule that output the idea of "pose no threat of directly or indirectly changing the political arrangement of the country". This answer has no language like that. This answer just hints at the possibility (way too weak for Sufficient Assumption) that in future elections, the moderates will team up to defeat the extremists.

   11%
5. E

   Too Weak: not always8% picked this

   People are not always supporting a move toward an extremist government when they vote for extremist

   The word "some / sometimes" will usually be wrong on Sufficient Assumption, Strengthen, Weaken, and Paradox, because on those problems we're shopping for answers with maximum impact. When we say "not all / not always", that has the same strength, because all it means when we say "X is not always Y" is that "Some X's are not Y". So this answer is hopelessly weak; it couldn't possibly guarantee that the extremist victories pose no threat to democracy.

   8%