LSAT 131 – Section 3 – Question 14

LSAT 131 - Section 3 - Question 14

December 2009

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

Target time: 0:53

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
PT131 S3 Q14	+LR	Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method Analogy +An	A 0% 157 B 7% 156 C 92% 165 D 0% 149 E 0% 146	129 139 149	+Easier	146.026 +SubsectionMedium

Economist: A country’s trade deficit may indicate weakness in its economy, but it does not in itself weaken that economy. So restricting imports to reduce a trade deficit would be like sticking a thermometer into a glass of cold water in the hope of bringing down a patient’s feverish temperature.

Summarize Argument

The economist concludes that restricting imports to reduce a trade deficit won’t effectively strengthen the economy. She argues that this course of action would be just as ineffective as sticking a thermometer in cold water to lower someone’s fever. This is because, although a country’s trade deficit may indicate economic weakness, the trade deficit does not in itself weaken the country’s economy.

Describe Method of Reasoning

The economist uses an analogy to show that restricting imports to reduce a trade deficit won’t strengthen the economy because the trade deficit isn’t causing economic weakness. She compares it to the pointless act of sticking a thermometer in cold water to lower a fever, suggesting that restricting imports would be just as useless.

claiming that a crucial assumption entails a falsehood

The economist never points out a crucial assumption in someone else’s argument, nor does she point out any falsehoods.

demonstrating that an analogy explicitly used to establish a certain conclusion is faulty

The economist uses an analogy, but not in the way that (B) describes. (B) suggests that the economist is showing that someone else’s analogy used to support their conclusion is flawed. This is not the case. Instead, she draws her own analogy to support her own conclusion.

appealing to an analogy in order to indicate the futility of a course of action

The economist uses an analogy to show that one course of action (restricting imports to reduce a trade deficit) would be just as futile as another course of action (sticking a thermometer in a cold water to lower a fever).

calling into question the authority on the basis of which a claim is made

The economist doesn’t question the authority of anyone making any claims. She doesn’t actually challenge any claims at all.

showing that a recommended course of action would have disastrous consequences

The economist shows that a particular course of action would be useless. She doesn’t necessarily challenge a “recommended” course of action, and she certainly doesn’t claim that it would have disastrous consequences.

LSAT 131 – Section 3 – Question 14

LSAT 131 - Section 3 - Question 14

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 131 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel