2025 CSAT — Q54

Locate. This is a valid-assumption question, so test each candidate against the argument’s actual commitments. The passage commits to two things: opposition is always valuable (“never be left without opponents”), and what is needed is a balance of power (neither arbitrary administration nor revolutionary opposition). Hold each statement against those.

Test (the negation test). Statement I — “strong opposition required only if the Head of Government is indifferent.” Negate it (opposition is needed regardless) — and that is exactly what the passage says, so I contradicts the text rather than being assumed by it: invalid. Statement II — “the more aggressive the opposition, the better the governance.” Negate it (aggression does not improve governance) — and the passage agrees, since it wants opposition not to be “revolutionary and irreconcilable.” II reverses the passage: invalid.

Eliminate by anatomy. (a) and (c) admit I, which over-states the case with a conditional-trap — “only if… indifferent” smuggles in a condition the passage flatly denies (opposition is always needed). (b) and (c) admit II, which gets the direction backwards — it prizes aggression where the passage prizes balance and warns against revolutionary opposition. Both fail; the answer is neither. Key: (d).

Statement I: “he ought also to pray never to be left without opponents” — the passage holds opposition to be ALWAYS needed, not conditionally on an indifferent Head of Government; “only if… indifferent” contradicts the text. Statement II: “a sufficiently even balance of political power… for opposition [not] to be revolutionary and irreconcilable” — the passage prizes BALANCE and warns against revolutionary opposition, so “the more aggressive… the better” reverses its point.

Statement I. The passage says a wise statesman “ought… to pray never to be left without opponents” — opposition is always needed, unconditionally. “Required only if the Head of Government is indifferent” introduces a condition the passage explicitly rejects. Negating I aligns with the passage. I is invalid.

Statement II. The passage rests on “a sufficiently even balance of political power” so opposition is not “revolutionary and irreconcilable.” “The more aggressive the opposition, the better the governance” reverses this — it celebrates exactly the extreme the passage warns against. II is invalid.

Both fail. Answer: (d) Neither I nor II.

Both statements are calibrated against the passage’s two core ideas — always need opposition, and need balance — and both violate one. I adds an illegitimate condition (“only if indifferent”) to something the passage holds unconditionally; II flips “balance” into “the more aggressive the better.” On a valid-assumption question, a statement that contradicts the passage (I) or reverses its prized value (II) can never be a valid assumption, however reasonable it sounds in isolation.