Logical Reasoning

PT126 · S3 · Q19 Bureaucrat: The primary, constant

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

Bureaucrat: The primary, constant goal of an ideal bureaucracy is to define and classify all possible problems and set out regulations regarding each eventuality.

Conclusion

An ideal bureaucracy will have an ever-expanding system of regulations.

Evidence

The #1 constant goal of an ideal bureaucracy is to find all problems and write regulations to address each of them. It also provides an appeal process to handle complaints. If a complaint reveals a new problem, then regulations are expanded to cover this new problem.

Evaluation

The author has given us a really strong conclusion: in an ideal bureaucracy, regulations will be forever expanding. What is the reason that we have to keep writing more and more regulations forever? We're hoping to write a regulation for every problem we find, and the author leaves us (before her conclusion) with the idea that complaints can help us find new problems, for which we need to expand our regulations.

If we were playing Devil's Advocate, we'd have to accept the evidence but come up with a storyline where an ideal bureaucracies regulations do NOT forever expand. They eventually stop where they are. That line of objection would sound something like, The author seems to be assuming we'll never be done finding new problems.

Goal

The argument needs to defend its idea that in an ideal bureaucracy, we will forever be finding new problems (hence, we will forever be writing new regulations).

19.

Which one of the following is an assumption the bureaucrat's argument requires?

  1. An ideal bureaucracy will provide

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: after defined all problems The author does not think that an ideal bureaucracy will ever define and classify all possible problems. After all, she's concluding that regulations will forever be expanding, because she's assuming we'll never be done finding new problems. So since the author's argument doesn't allow for the possibility of an ideal bureaucracy ever finishing its job, the author doesn't need to assume anything about what would happen in that hypothetical (and in the author's opinion, impossible) scenario.

    11% picked this

  2. For each problem that an

    Too Strong: every

    The author doesn't need to think that every problem came from a complaint, nor does she have to think that every complaint reveals a new problem. The paragraph is consistent with the idea that an ideal bureaucracy might start out with its best guess at defining all problems and writing applicable regulations. Complaints would help them figure out what they missed. We don't have to think that the process of defining problems only stems from the complaint/appeals process.

    6% picked this

  3. Correct

    An ideal bureaucracy will never

    Why this is right

    This is the ever-expanding engine the author had in mind. If we negate this, it badly hurts the argument. The negation would be saying, "Hey, author ... at some point, this ideal bureaucracy will stop getting complaints that reveal new problems, so at that point the regulations could stay put and stop expanding."

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

    62% picked this

  4. An ideal bureaucracy can reach

    Too Strong: if and only if

    The author has made it seem like an ideal bureaucracy never reaches its primary goal. After all, her conclusion sounds like the ideal bureaucracy will forever be chasing its goal, ever-expanding to cover new problems it hadn't previously detected. So the "only if" part of this answer is probably fair. But the idea that "if a system of regulations is always expanding, then an ideal bureaucracy can reach its primary goal" is not applicable to the author's thinking. The primary goal is to "define and address all problems", so if the author thinks that there will always be new problems to address, then she thinks that the primary goal will never be achieved (or at least never permanently achieved).

    10% picked this

  5. Any complaint that an ideal

    Too Strong: any complaint

    The author is definitely not generalizing about anything that is true of all complaints. She even qualifies a statement by saying, "If it's the type of complaint that reveals a new problem ...", so she recognizes that complaints will have a variety of types. Some may be about problems we already know. Some may be about new problems we could define/classify. Some may be about new problems we can't define/classify.

    12% 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