Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardSufficient Assumption

Political Theorist: For any grassroots insurgency to achieve systemic political reform, it must maintain ideological orthodoxy while simultaneously cultivating a broad electoral consensus. Cultivating such a consensus universally necessitates that the insurgency's leadership forge alliances with incumbent political factions. Yet, the very act of forging alliances with incumbent political factions inevitably compromises the foundational tenets of the insurgency's original manifesto. It therefore follows that no grassroots insurgency can achieve systemic political reform.

The conclusion of the political theorist's argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. A
    Cultivating a broad electoral consensus invariably requires a grassroots insurgency to compromise the foundational tenets of its original manifesto.
  2. B
    A grassroots insurgency fails to maintain ideological orthodoxy only if it has compromised the foundational tenets of its original manifesto.
  3. A grassroots insurgency maintains ideological orthodoxy only if it does not compromise the foundational tenets of its original manifesto.Answer
  4. D
    No grassroots insurgency is capable of forging alliances with incumbent political factions without eventually abandoning every single one of its original political goals.
  5. E
    Maintaining ideological orthodoxy while cultivating a broad electoral consensus is sufficient for a grassroots insurgency to achieve systemic political reform.

Answer

The option stating that an insurgency maintains ideological orthodoxy only if it does not compromise the foundational tenets of its original manifesto.
The argument relies on formal logic. Let's map it: Achieving systemic reform (A) requires both maintaining ideological orthodoxy (B) and cultivating a broad consensus (C). So, A requires B and C. The theorist then states that cultivating consensus (C) requires forging alliances (D), which in turn inevitably compromises foundational tenets (E). By chaining these premises, we deduce that if an insurgency achieves reform (A), it must maintain orthodoxy (B) AND compromise its tenets (E). However, the conclusion jumps to the absolute claim that achieving reform is impossible. To prove this conclusion, we must introduce a rule that makes it impossible to simultaneously do both B and E. The credited response provides exactly this rule: 'maintaining orthodoxy' (B) requires 'NOT compromising tenets' (NOT E). If we assume B -> NOT E, then achieving reform (A) would require an insurgency to both compromise (E) and not compromise (NOT E), which is a logical contradiction. Thus, reform (A) is impossible, perfectly justifying the conclusion.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Map the formal logic of the argument's premises and conclusion.
Conclusion: Reform -> Impossible. Premises: Reform -> (Orthodoxy AND Consensus). Consensus -> Alliances. Alliances -> Compromise.
Understanding the chain of conditional statements is required to find the deductive gap.
2
Trace the causal/conditional chain created by the premises.
Reform -> Consensus -> Alliances -> Compromise. Therefore, achieving Reform guarantees that the insurgency Compromises.
Consolidating the premises reveals what must logically follow if the sufficient condition (Reform) is met.
3
Identify the deductive gap between the premise chain and the conclusion.
The premises prove that Reform -> (Orthodoxy AND Compromise). The conclusion claims Reform is impossible. The missing link must establish that Orthodoxy and Compromise are mutually exclusive.
For the conclusion to be 100% valid, the assumption must force a logical contradiction when Reform is achieved.
4
Formulate the sufficient assumption to bridge the gap.
If an insurgency maintains Orthodoxy, it cannot Compromise (Orthodoxy -> NOT Compromise). If we add this assumption, achieving Reform requires an insurgency to both Compromise and NOT Compromise, a contradiction that proves Reform is impossible.
This specific conditional relationship guarantees the argument's absolute conclusion.

Key Concept

Identifying the missing deductive link (sufficient assumption) in a formal logic chain by mapping conditional statements.
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Rate this question

Topics

Sufficient Assumption

More questions from this topic