PT6.S2.Q25 - The effects of certain governments subsidy of farming

Bomhillz

Parallel method of reasoning question.

I crossed off (c) because of the word 'periodically'. Now I see the structure of elements was more important to find the right answer.

Stimulus:
Gov intend guaranteed production
Gsub -> More Farm -> S Exhaust and RY (opposite of intention)

(c)
Gov intend out off conflict
Armed Forces -> Need Discipline and morale -> periodic combat (opposite of intention)

Also the word 'and' is super tricky. In the stimulus it's used in the third piece and in (c) the second piece.

I think the LSAT moral here is that similarities in argument structure trump differences in content structure.

FlashLSAT

Stimulus explained: This is not a very difficult stimulus to understand. The government has set out to meet a goal of adequate domestic production. The means used to reach this goal, instead, creates a result opposite of what the government original goal was. It decreased the yields from the point that they currently were.

We are looking for a goal that is not met because of the means used to reach that goal and AC C meets this threshold.

A. Certain governments subsidize theaters in order to attract foreign tourists. But tourists rarely choose a destination for the theatrical performances it has to offer.
a. This does not fit the reasoning used in the stimulus because the goal to attract foreign tourists is not reversed because of the movie theatres. Although the movie theatres may not be successful in reaching the goal of attracting tourists it still does not contribute to the decrease of tourists visiting the city.

B. Certain governments restrict imports in order to keep domestic producers in business. But since domestic producers do not have to face the full force of foreign competition, some domestic producers are able to earn inordinately high profits.
a. This does not fit the reasoning found in the stimulus. We know nothing of the success or failuare of the goal. We know domestic business make more this might imply that the goal was successful. Either way this does not match the reasoning of argumentation used in the stimulus.

C. Certain governments build strong armed forces in order to forestall armed conflict. But in order to maintain the sort of discipline and morale that keeps armed forces strong, those forces must be used in actual combat periodically.
a. The goal of forestalling armed conflict is thwarted, and armed conflict is increased because of the means used while trying to forestall armed conflict which was building strong armed forces. Building strong armed forces comes along with an unforeseen issue of maintence. Maintenance requires the very thing this government was trying to avoid. This then is similar to the reasoning within the stimulus.

D. Certain governments reduce taxes on businesses in order to stimulate private investment. But any investment is to some extent a gamble, and a new business ventures are not always as successful as their owners hoped.
a. Stimulating private investment and the success of this private investment is not the same thing. This answer choice reasoning is not similar to the stimulus.

E. Certain governments pass traffic laws in order to make travel safer. But the population-driven growth in volumes of traffic often has the effect of making travel less safe despite the passage of new traffic laws.
a. This was my original answer choice. I misunderstood what this AC was truly saying.
b. After dissecting it I noticed that “population-driven” was not what I thought it was originally. I assumed that population driven growth had something to do with the newly pass traffic laws but they are not connected in the same fashion that I believed. The newly passed laws does not cause the population driven growth they stem from different causes but when clashed together the newly passed laws are overcome by this population driven growth in the volumes of traffic.
i. So the goal fails but not because of the means used to achieve the goal.

mindlikewater

I struggled with this question as well and got it wrong twice on BR; so I'm taking it apart a bit.

Key is the question stem:

"..situation..most nearly similar.. blah blah to which of the following with respect to the relationship between the declared INTENT of a gov't practice and a CIRCUMSTANCE RELEVANT TO IT {aka THAT INTENT]"

So the intent and its relationship to something in or about it (that's hopefully relevant) figures into the (causal? wishful?) logic even if you diagram it.

The best I can make of the stimulus is this:

Intent: A-->B (subsidy --maintain--> adequate agricultural production)
Unintended byproduct: A intensifies C (more intensive farming aka agricultural production, a circumstance related to all of the intent A-->B)
Final Result: C --> ~B (opposite effect)

Answer choice (C) does something like this:

Intent: A --> B ( build strong AF --maintain--> peace)
Unintended byproduct: A maintains some sort of unintended relationship to the intent A-->B, call it "C"
Final Result: C --> ~B (opposite effect)

This allowed me to see (B) was definitely wrong and (E) just doesn't diagram the same way. Unfortunately, the word "periodically" is thrown in to lead you away from the most legit answer but the question stem does leave room for loose approximations by the qualifier "most nearly."

Logical mashed potatoes. Yuck.