Large inequalities in wealth always threaten the viability of true democracy, since wealth is the basis of political ...

Meredith August 14, 2019

Yes! Can someone please answer this!

Ravi August 14, 2019

@nelson and @Meredith,

Happy to help.

You're right...the terms don't match up completely. They kind of do,
but either way, this argument isn't that good. That said, we can
create a general diagram to help us see the structure of the argument,
as all we're looking to do in this question is find the answer choice
that contains an argument most similar to the argument in the
stimulus.

For this argument, we have

Wealth inequality - >threatens democracy (this is the conclusion)

The premises are

wealth - >political power
true democracy - >equal distribution of power

These don't appear to connect together, but if we play around with the
terms in general and take the contrapositive of the second premise, we
get

wealth - >political power for wealthy individuals (unequal distribution
of power) - >not true democracy (threatens democracy)

It's important to note that you're right...in general, you never want
to play around terms when you're trying to make a conclusion from an
argument or do something similar. However, for this type of question
(parallel reasoning) it's fine to do this if it helps you create a
general map of what's going on so that you can find the argument in
the answer choices that's the most similar. This is why it's o.k. to
do it on this question.

We want an answer choice that follows the general format of what we've
outlined above. Note that there were no quantifiers or compound
statements, so any answer choices with and/or can be removed quickly.

(A) says, "Consumer culture and an emphasis on technological
innovation are a dangerous combination, since together they are
uncontrollable and lead to irrational excess."

We can get rid of (A) because there's a compound statement ("and") in
there, and this wasn't in the stimulus.

(B) says, "If Sara went to the bookstore every time her pocket was
full, Sara would never have enough money to cover her living expenses,
since books are her love and they are getting very expensive."

(B) makes no sense and is invalid. We don't have a clue what Sara's
living expenses are, how much money she has, and whether or not she
buys the books. Even though the argument in the stimulus is a little
shaky due to the terms not completely matching up, this argument is
way off and doesn't have the same structure, so it's out.

(C) says, "It is very difficult to write a successful science fiction
novel that is set in the past, since historical fiction depends on
historical accuracy, whereas science fiction does not."

(C) is invalid, and it makes no sense. The argument is about writing
science fiction, so we do not care about the fact that historical
fiction depends on accuracy, so (C) is out.

(D) says, "Honesty is important in maintaining friendships. But
sometimes honesty can lead to arguments, so it is difficult to predict
the effect a particular honest act will have on a friendship."

(D) doesn't make any sense and doesn't appear to have a conclusion.
Also, the "some" statement allows us to eliminate it, as there's no
"some" statement in the stimulus.

(E) says, "Repeated encroachments on one's leisure time by a demanding
job interfere with the requirements of good health. The reason is that
good health depends on regular moderate exercise, but adequate leisure
time is essential to regular exercise."

(E) looks good, and it matches up pretty nicely with the stimulus.

Repeated encroachments on leisure time - >interfere with requirements
of good health (conclusion)

premises:

good health - >regular moderate exercise
regular exercise - >adequate lesiure time

taking the contrapositives, we have

inadequate leisure time (repeated encroachments on leisure time) - >not
regular exercise - >not good health (interfere with the requirements of
good health)

Like the stimulus, we have a transitive structure with three terms
that are connected. We also have to take contrapositives and be a
little liberal in connecting the terms to make everything work. This
argument has a very similar structure to the stimulus and also has the
same flaws of not having totally matching terms. Thus, (E) is correct.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!