LSAT 157 – Section 2 – Question 04

LSAT 157 - Section 2 - Question 04

June 2020

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:02

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT157 S2 Q04
+LR
Weaken +Weak
A
2%
149
B
80%
158
C
1%
142
D
16%
154
E
1%
138
120
124
149
 +Easiest 143.482 +SubsectionEasier

Economist: Our country needs as much capital as possible from overseas investors in order to sustain our economy. Hence, we cannot afford any reduction in the amount of capital that overseas investors have invested here. Therefore, to sustain our economy, we should pass laws making it much more difficult for overseas investors to remove their capital.

Summarize Argument
An Economist believes that to sustain the country’s economy, they should pass laws making it more difficult for investors to remove their capital. This is because the economy depends on overseas capital and they cannot afford any reduction in that investment.

Notable Assumptions
The Economist assumes that these laws would not reduce the net amount of investment from overseas investors.

A
To sustain its economy, the country needs to diversify its investments more evenly across the country’s industries.
While diversifying investments could help sustain the economy, this does not weaken the Economist’s argument. This is irrelevant to the argument’s premises and conclusion.
B
Laws that would make it more difficult for overseas investors to remove their capital would strongly discourage them from investing any additional capital.
This challenges the Economist’s assumption that the overall amount of investment in the country would *not* decrease if such laws were enacted. This suggests that the law would cause further investment to ultimately decrease
C
The historical periods during which the country’s economy had the highest rate of growth were those periods during which the amount of capital invested by overseas investors was highest.
If anything, this reinforces the idea that overseas investment is beneficial to the economy.
D
In countries other than the economist’s, passage of laws that made it very difficult for overseas investors to remove their capital have not entirely prevented the removal of capital invested by overseas investors.
While this questions the efficacy of the laws, it does not address whether they will sustain the economy or harm future investment. That is the crux of the argument.
E
Two years ago, the country enacted laws that place some restrictions on the removal of capital by overseas investors.
This does not challenge the economist’s reasoning. The economist just wants *stronger* laws.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 157 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply