LSAT 112 – Section 3 – Question 06

LSAT 112 - Section 3 - Question 06

December 2001

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:15

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
PT112 S3 Q06
+LR
Argument part +AP
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Eliminating Options +ElimOpt
A
6%
152
B
85%
161
C
1%
146
D
6%
152
E
2%
146
133
142
151
 +Medium 144.548 +SubsectionEasier

Government official: A satisfactory way of eliminating chronic food shortages in our country is not easily achievable. Direct aid from other countries in the form of food shipments tends to undermine our prospects for long-term agricultural self-sufficiency. If external sources of food are delivered effectively by external institutions, local food producers and suppliers are forced out of business. On the other hand, foreign capital funneled to long-term development projects would inject so much cash into our economy that inflation would drive the price of food beyond the reach of most of our citizens.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The government official concludes that there is no easily achievable way to eliminate chronic food shortages in his country. To support this conclusion, he raises, then rejects, two possible solutions. First, he says that direct food shipments from other countries will weaken the country’s long-term agricultural self sufficiency because these food shipments would force local producers out of business. And secondly, foreign investments in long-term development projects would result in inflation, making food unaffordable and perpetuating the food shortages.

Identify Argument Part
The claim in the question stem is a premise that rejects one of the potential solutions to the food shortages; in demonstrating that foreign investment will not easily solve the food shortage, this claim works to support the government official’s conclusion.

A
It supports the claim that the official’s country must someday be agriculturally self-sufficient.
The official does not claim that the country must become agriculturally self sufficient––this language is too strong; instead, he says that direct aid would undermine the possibility to of self-sufficiency. Also, the referenced text does not support the idea in this answer.
B
It supports the claim that there is no easy solution to the problem of chronic food shortages in the official’s country.
The claim in the question stem is a premise that supports the conclusion, so this answer is correct because it correctly identifies the conclusion.
C
It is supported by the claim that the official’s country must someday be agriculturally self-sufficient.
The claim in the question stem is a premise; it does not get support from any other part of the text.
D
It supports the claim that donations of food from other countries will not end the chronic food shortages in the official’s country.
The information about the results of food donation is separate from the information about the results of foreign investment; these are two separate premises that do not support each other. Instead, they both work to support the conclusion.
E
It is supported by the claim that food producers and suppliers in the official’s country may be forced out of business by donations of food from other countries.
Similar to answer C, this answer is wrong because the claim in the question text is a premise, so it does not receive support from any other part of the argument.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 112 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply