Which assertion in the passage does the author support with a practical example?

Which assertion in the passage does the author support with a practical example?

• A. "Direct government by the people greatly facilitates sudden insurrection of all kinds by individuals who are exceptionally bold, energetic, and adroit."
• B. "And therewith disappears also personality and sense of responsibility."
• C. "The adhesion of the crowd is tumultuous, summary, and unconditional."
• D. "It is impossible for the collectivity to undertake the direct settlement of all the controversies that may arise."

Answer: (D)

The assertion supported by a practical example discusses the challenges that arise when a collective tries to directly settle all controversies. This statement reflects on the complexities of group decision-making and the impracticality of expecting a large number of individuals to agree and take swift action on every issue. In providing a practical example, the author likely illustrates how difficult it is for a crowd or collective to effectively manage and resolve differing opinions or conflicts, emphasizing that such situations often require nuanced judgment and deliberation that is difficult to achieve in a large group. This accentuates the limitations of direct democracy or crowd-based decision-making processes. The other assertions, while they raise relevant points about governance, do not provide concrete examples that detail a situation demonstrating their claims. Therefore, the focus on the difficulties faced by collectives in resolving various controversies offers a clearer application of the author's argument through a practical lens.

The assertion supported by a practical example discusses the challenges that arise when a collective tries to directly settle all controversies. This statement reflects on the complexities of group decision-making and the impracticality of expecting a large number of individuals to agree and take swift action on every issue.

In providing a practical example, the author likely illustrates how difficult it is for a crowd or collective to effectively manage and resolve differing opinions or conflicts, emphasizing that such situations often require nuanced judgment and deliberation that is difficult to achieve in a large group. This accentuates the limitations of direct democracy or crowd-based decision-making processes.

The other assertions, while they raise relevant points about governance, do not provide concrete examples that detail a situation demonstrating their claims. Therefore, the focus on the difficulties faced by collectives in resolving various controversies offers a clearer application of the author's argument through a practical lens.