LSAT 111 – Section 4 – Question 17

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 17

October 2001

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

Target time: 1:49

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 This gives you an idea of how this question is “curved”— in other words, what level of scorer is likely to get this question right. It shows a model of scaled LSAT score vs probability of getting the question correct. It is based on student test results for each question. The gray bar extends from the score for a 25% chance, to the score for a 75% chance of getting the question correct. The black line in the middle is the score for a 50% chance of getting the question correct. The percentage at the right is the expected chance of someone with the same score as you on that PrepTest getting that question correct	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve This gives you an idea of how this question is “curved”— in other words, what level of scorer is likely to get this question right. It shows a model of scaled LSAT score vs probability of getting the question correct. It is based on student test results for each question. The gray bar extends from the score for a 25% chance, to the score for a 75% chance of getting the question correct. The black line in the middle is the score for a 50% chance of getting the question correct. The percentage at the right is the expected chance of someone with the same score as you on that PrepTest getting that question correct	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT111 S4 Q17	+LR	Except +Exc Weaken +Weak Conditional Reasoning +CondR Link Assumption +LinkA Kick It Up +KIU	A 3% 155 B 6% 158 C 2% 155 D 4% 159 E 85% 166	141 149 157	+Medium	144.86 +SubsectionEasier

Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries

First Previous1Next Last

J.Y.’s explanation

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

Politician: All nations that place a high tax on income produce thereby a negative incentive for technological innovation, and all nations in which technological innovation is hampered inevitably fall behind in the international arms race. Those nations that, through historical accident or the foolishness of their political leadership, wind up in a strategically disadvantageous position are destined to lose their voice in world affairs. So if a nation wants to maintain its value system and way of life, it must not allow its highest tax bracket to exceed 30 percent of income.

Summarize Argument

The politician concludes that nations should tax income only at rates lower than 30 percent in order to maintain their value system and way of life. For support, he cites a general rule: a high income tax produces a negative incentive for innovation, which causes a country to fall behind in the arms race. This causes those nations to lose international power, a circumstance threatening their values and way of life.

Notable Assumptions

The politician makes many assumptions. He assumes an income tax bracket exceeding 30 percent is high enough to produce a negative incentive for innovation, that such an incentive always hampers innovation, that falling behind in the arms race means suffering a “strategically disadvantageous position,” and that a nation that loses power internationally is at risk of compromising its way of life and values.

The top level of taxation must reach 45 percent before taxation begins to deter inventors and industrialists from introducing new technologies and industries.

This disputes the assumption that any income tax bracket exceeding 30 percent is high enough to create a negative incentive for technological innovation.

Making a great deal of money is an insignificant factor in driving technological innovation.

This calls into question the general rule, critical to the politician’s argument, that a high income tax produces a negative incentive for innovation.

Falling behind in the international arms race does not necessarily lead to a strategically less advantageous position.

This refutes the assumption that nations who lag in the arms race must be strategically disadvantaged, and thus breaks a link in the politician’s chain of reasoning.

Those nations that lose influence in the world community do not necessarily suffer from a threat to their value system or way of life.

This disputes the assumption that nations that lose international power risk compromising their values or way of life, breaking a link in the politician’s chain of reasoning.

Allowing one’s country to lose its technological edge, especially as concerns weaponry, would be foolish rather than merely a historical accident.

This is consistent with the politician’s statements because he says that falling behind in the arms race will cause a country to lose its international power, even if it’s due to foolishness.

LSAT 111 – Section 4 – Question 17

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 17

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

J.Y.’s explanation

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 111 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel