flawed reasoning

gmatnmein2010 wrote: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
Incorrect : New information (conditions necessary/sufficient for political freedom) is brought about. Hence Eliminated

(B) fail to consider that a substantial increase in the level of political freedom might cause a society to become more democratic
Incorrect : Effects of political freedom is not an issue here. Eliminated.

(C) appeals to historical examples that are irrelevant to the causal claim being made
Incorrect : Historical example presented above may not show that the argument is flawed but it is not irrelevant either.

(D) overlooks the possibility that democracy promotes political freedom without being necessary or sufficient by itself to produce it
Correct : In the stimulus above author makes an unwarranted assumption that democracy is necessary/sufficient to produce political freedom. There may be other factors required to produce political freedom. This answer choice points out exactly this flaw.

(E) bases its historical case on a personal point of view
Incorrect : This answer choice looks attractive but ultimately (D) scores by POE.

Hope this helps : )

gmatnmein2010 wrote: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
(E) bases its historical case on a personal point of view

I would definitely put my money on D, below are the reasons.

Argument says with an example that democracies have resulted in most oppressive societies. --- Now, this is the result and and not the necessary method/cause that democracies have followed in the past. They may be promoting political freedom, but even then it resulted in oppressive societies. So here , author assumes that democracies in the past were not promoting political freedom and comes to the conclusion.
This is a big flaw in the context.

A- we are not talking about any conditions in this example, hence irrelevant and can be rules out.

B - "increase in level" --have not mentioned it anywhere in the context ---ruled out

C- examples are in fact very relevant to the cause in the context ---hence ruled out

D- indicates the correct flaw between the cause and effect in the example that author assumes as true.

E- No personal view in mentioned(author doesn't mentions anything "personally" or tells what he feels about historical case)

The official answer is D. But I don't understand why? Can anyone explain