LSAT 135 – Section 1 – Question 07

LSAT 135 - Section 1 - Question 07

December 2011

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

Target time: 0:54

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
PT135 S1 Q07
+LR
Most strongly supported +MSS
Fill in the blank +Fill
Rule-Application +RuleApp
Net Effect +NetEff
Analogy +An
A
0%
148
B
1%
150
C
0%
153
D
98%
164
E
1%
156
124
132
139
 +Easiest 146.098 +SubsectionMedium

Economist: Government intervention in the free market in pursuit of socially desirable goals can affect supply and demand, thereby distorting prices. The ethics of such intervention is comparable to that of administering medicines. Most medicines have harmful as well as beneficial effects, so the use of a type of medicine is ethically justified only when its nonuse would be significantly more harmful than its use. Similarly, government intervention in the free market is justified only when it _______.

Summary

The author draws an analogy between the ethics of administering medicine and the ethics of government intervention. Since most medicines have both harmful and beneficial effects, using a medicine is justified only when not using it would cause a lot more harm than using it. Similarly, since government intervention in the free market for the purpose of social engineering can distort prices, such intervention is justified only when failure to intervene causes a lot more harm than the intervention.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

We’re looking to fill in the concerning what is required in order for government intervention in the free market to be justified. Based on the analogy to medicine, we can conclude that government intervention is justified only when the failure to intervene is a lot more harmful than intervention.

A
would likely be approved of by the majority of the affected participants

Unsupported. The analogy doesn’t condition the ethical use of medicine on approval, so it doesn’t make sense to complete the analogy with a comment on approval.

B
has been shown to have few if any significantly harmful effects

Unsupported. The analogy conditions the ethical use of medicine on a comparison between using medicine vs. not using the medicine. So it doesn’t make sense to complete the analogy with a comment that doesn’t involve a comparison between intervention and not having intervention.

C
is believed unlikely to significantly exacerbate any existing problems

Unsupported. The analogy conditions the ethical use of medicine on a comparison between using medicine vs. not using the medicine. So it doesn’t make sense to complete the analogy with a comment that doesn’t involve a comparison between intervention and not having intervention.

D
would do less damage than would result from the government’s not intervening

Strongly supported. Use of medicine is ethical only when not using it is more harmful than using it. Similarly, intervention is ethical only when not intervening is more harmful than intervening.

E
provides a solution to some otherwise insoluble problem

Unsupported. The analogy does not condition the ethical use of medicine on the provision of a solution. The requirement involve comparing the harm of using medicine vs. not using it. So it doesn’t make sense to complete the analogy with a comment on solutions.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 135 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply