Q11

[zainrizvi]

Unsure exactly (A) is an assumption. Isn't it already explicitly stated between Line 8-15?

[timmydoeslsat]

Ahh, but read lines 8-15. It does not state that polyarchies ARE NOT what that says in those lines.

Dahl not only assumes that polyarchies are incapable of being full realizations of democracy, but also that no other system or type can be capable either.

Dahl goes from saying "well it has to be this way for it to be a democracy....Since that is the case, there are really only APPROXIMATIONS to this.

Dahl's reasoning depends on assuming that polyarchies AND no other type are capable of being the full realization of democracy.

[bswise2]

Would someone mind explaining why C is wrong?

The second paragraph talks about how polyarchy is the "nearest possible approximation to the democratic ideal" and then elaborates regarding how these pressure groups shift the power from political parties to voters. But if the voters were not "equal" in their access to politically influencing resources, then doesn't the issue just circle back around to a concentrated distribution of power? How is Dahl not assuming that these citizens have an equal playing field?

Thanks in advance.

[ohthatpatrick]

On any RC question stem asking
"inferred / implies / suggests / most likely to agree"
we want to be very wary of strong/specific language.

(B) says that there is ZERO % hierarchy in a polyarchy.

(C) says all citizens have IDENTICAL access to resources of political influence.

(D) says that polyarchy is the NUMBER ONE political system ever when it comes to facilitating the growth of political parties.

(E) says that polyarchy has ZERO INFLUENCE from economic enterprises.

Meanwhile, our correct answer (A) is saying something very weak.
(A) Polyarchies do not 100% achieve the ideal of democracy -- i.e., they are anywhere from 0 to 99% of its ideal form.

I'm dramatizing the extreme/weak language a tad in the hopes of encouraging you to make those words pop more. They are big red flags.

More conversationally, Dahl was NOT thinking that citizens have equal access in a polyarchy.

He thinks that nothing can ever achieve the ideal of EQUAL access. He's just arguing that, of the imperfect real world forms of government that do/can exist, polyarchy does a better job of approximating equality.

Hope this helps.