Conservative:  Socialists begin their arguments with an analysis of history, from which they claim to derive certain ...

Shirnel April 30, 2020

In this case, should I just analyze the socialist statement and look for an answer choice that violates the premises in that statement?

Should I also be looking for an answer choice that follows the premises of the conservative statement?

Please advise.

shunhe May 3, 2020

Hi @Shirnel,

Thanks for the question! So what I would do for this question is at least skim through what the conservative says, and then read the socialist one. You can’t just analyze the socialist statement, because you have to know how those conflict with the conservative’s view of history, and it helps to know what the conservative is saying. It’s theoretically possible to do it without, but it helps you make sense of the argument. Then, you can focus on the socialist statement and see which one of the answer choices would contradict it. In this case, the socialist wants to work hard to transform the institutions of capitalist society. But if the conservative thinks that history is accidental, and if history is accidental, then it’s impossible for people to direct their efforts sensibly to achieving large-scale changes in social conditions (like the socialist wants to), then that would be a conflict with the socialist’s statements. The answer choice should violate something in the socialist’s statement, and it will likely follow the premises of the conservative’s statement as well, and we can see that the answer choice does do that. What’s key, here, however, is that whatever the answer choice is, it has to conflict with the socialist’s statements, if that’s your question. To some degree, it doesn’t matter what the conservative actually says. But would definitely read through both.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.