Question

Political scientist: As a political system, democracy does not promote political freedom. There are historical examples of democracies that ultimately resulted in some of the most oppressive societies. Likewise, there have been enlightened despotisms and oligarchies that have provided a remarkable level of political freedom to their subjects. The reasoning in the political scientist's argument is flawed because it

• A. confuses the conditions necessary for political freedom with the conditions sufficient to bring It about
• B. fail to consider that a substantial increase in the level of political freedom might cause a society to become more democratic
• C. appeals to historical examples that are irrelevant to the causal claim being made
• D. overlooks the possibility that democracy promotes political freedom without being necessary or sufficient by itself to produce it

Answer 1

The correct option is D overlooks the possibility that democracy promotes political freedom without being necessary or sufficient by itself to produce it

Answer (d)
The premise stated by the political scientist is that:
"As a political system, democracy does not promote political freedom”
Example given by him "There are historical examples of democracies that ultimately resulted in some of the most oppressive societies”
Here he talks about democracy leading to oppressive societies. But there can be a oppressive society which has political freedom.
So it is an incomplete example. Democracy can promote political freedom and at the same time create an oppressive society, as the argument does not provide any link between political freedom and oppressive society.

SO the argument overlooks the possibility that democracy promotes political freedom without being necessary or sufficient by itself to produce it (a democratic society as it can create an oppressive society).