Among multiparty democracies

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: disagreements within parties6% picked this

   The more political parties a nation has, the more likely it is that there will

   The author is committed to thinking that more parties means each party has to take a stand on fewer issues, leading to less prioritizing and possibly less compromise. But nowhere does she discuss disagreements within parties.

   6%
2. B

   Out of Scope: important9% picked this

   The fewer the number of a nation's political parties, the more important it is that those parties can

   We know that the fewer parties there are, the more likely they are to compromise. But that’s different from saying “the more important it is that they compromise”. I can say “the more candy I eat, the more sugar is in my bloodstream”, and that wouldn’t commit me to thinking “the more candy I eat, the more important it is that there is sugar in my bloodstream”.

   9%
3. C

   Correct81% picked this

   The tendency to compromise makes the legislative process

   Why this is right

   This is also the only answer that mentions the new guy “most-productive legislatures”, so it would be possible to scan the answers and move very quickly to this one. If we negate this, and compromise has nothing to do with productivity, then the author’s evidence never managed to say anything about “more/less productive legislatures”.

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

   81%
4. D

   Fake Opposite Out of Scope: nondemocracies1% picked this

   The legislatures of nondemocracies are less productive than are those

   As soon as we see “nondemocracies”, we know this is out of scope. This is a Fake Opposite trap that’s common on Necessary Assumption. Since we’re hearing that some democracies are more productive, they write a trap answer that says non-democracies are less productive.

   1%
5. E

   Too Strong: “never” “all” “important issues”3% picked this

   Legislators in a multiparty democracy never all agree on

   This is way too strong. The author hasn’t committed herself to the idea that legislators in multiparty democracies have never all agreed on something important. If we negate this, it gives something way too weak to hurt the argument: “at least one time, in a multiparty democracy, legislators all agreed on an important issue”.

   3%