Logical Reasoning

PT119 · S4 · Q16 In countries where government officials

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

In countries where government officials are neither selected by free elections nor open to criticism by a free press, the lives of citizens are controlled by policies they have had no role in creating.

Conclusion

The fact that citizens (in countries with unelected / uncriticized leaders) are ruled by policies that the citizens had no role in creating makes these countries prone to civil disorder.

Evidence

When citizens don't understand the purpose of the policies that rule them, they are more prone to civil disorder.

Evaluate

This paragraph uses a lot dense sentences to hide a relatively simple argument structure. What would be the assumption in this argument

People who are X are prone to Y.

After all, people who are Z are prone to Y.

This is assuming that .

People ruled by policies they had no role in creating are prone to disorder. After all, people who don't understand the policies that rule them are prone to disorder.

Goal

So what's being assumed -- .

Or put another way, .

16.

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

People who have had a
Out of Scope: rationally Opposite Logic
This answer is half-insinuating that civil disorder is "irrational behavior", which is definitely not a connection we should be adding. It's also just writing an "illegal light switch" version of the conclusion. if you had no role, then more prone to civil disorder if you had a role, then less prone to civil disorder (i.e. act more rationally)
6% picked this
A free press is better
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: press controlled by government The "free elections and free press" part is really not central to the logic of this argument. The author never discusses a press controlled by the government. The author isn't thinking that citizens end up "not understanding the purpose of government policy" because the government press isn't as good at conveying the purpose of policy. She's thinking they end up that way because the citizens had no role in creating the policies.
4% picked this
Civil disorder cannot be prevented
Too Strong: cannot be prevented
The author never gets close to saying/assuming that "civil disorder cannot be prevented".
1% picked this
Correct
People tend not to understand
Why this is right
"Unless" = "if it is not the case that" If people do not → they don't participate in the understand the formulation of restrictions purpose The author is saying that "people who don't have a role / who don't participate in the creation/formulation of restrictions / controlling polices are prone to disorder" because "people who don't understand the purpose of restrictions are prone to disorder". So the author is definitely moving from "if have no role in creating restriction, then don't understand purpose of restriction".
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
75% picked this
Civil disorder does not generally
Relative vs. Absolute
The author is only talking about certain countries being more/less prone to civil disorder. We're never talking about countries having no civil disorder. He's not saying that most countries (generally) with free elections or a free press are devoid of civil disorder.
14% 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