LSAT 150 – Section 3 – Question 24

LSAT 150 - Section 3 - Question 24

June 2018

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

Target time: 1:12

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
PT150 S3 Q24	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Causal Reasoning +CausR Net Effect +NetEff	A 2% 155 B 11% 155 C 2% 152 D 58% 165 E 26% 160	152 160 167	+Hardest	148.057 +SubsectionMedium

Politician: Every regulation currently being proposed by the Committee for Overseas Trade will reduce the trade deficit. Our country’s trade deficit is so large that it weakens the economy. Therefore, each of the proposed regulations would help the economy.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that each (every single one) of the proposed regulations would help the economy. This is based on the following:

Every proposed regulation will reduce the trade deficit.

The trade deficit is so large that it weakens the economy.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author assumes that the proposed regulations won’t have any effects that could harm the economy that outweigh the benefit to the economy from reducing the trade deficit. This overlooks the possibility that the net effect of the regulations could harm the economy or end up not changing the economy.

takes for granted that the trade deficit will increase in size if no action is taken to reduce it

The author points out that the deficit is currently large enough to weaken the economy. But the author doesn’t assume that the deficit will grow if we don’t do anything to reduce it. The reasoning is based purely on the current deficit.

takes for granted that the only means of strengthening the economy is reducing the trade deficit

The author does not assume that we must reduce the trade deficit to strengthen the economy. There can be other ways to help the economy; the author is simply asserting that the proposed regulations would have the effect of helping the economy.

merely appeals to the authority of the committee without evaluating any reasons for the proposed regulations

The author does not “merely” appeal to the authority of the committee. The author does not say that we should pass the regulations because the committee recommends them. Rather, the author points to the effect the regulations have on the trade deficit.

fails to consider the possibility that one effect of a regulation will be offset by other effects

This possibility points out that even if a regulation reduces the trade deficit, it may have other effects that end up hurting the economy (ex. they might also enact tariffs or increase taxes, etc.). The net effect of a regulation might not end up helping the economy.

concludes that every regulation in a set will have the same effects as a set of regulations as a whole

(E) describes a whole-to-part fallacy. But the argument gives us a premise about “every regulation” — this is about each regulation. And the conclusion is also about each regulation. So the argument doesn’t start with a statement about the whole.

Flaw/Descriptive Weakening

Let's say that someone's very obese. That's bad for their overall health. There are now a number of proposals on the table to help them lose weight. Consider proposal 1 which I won't reveal yet but trust me, it definitely helps them lose weight. Are you willing to accept that therefore it'll be good for their overall health?

Well you shouldn't. Because you know what proposal 1 is? Crystal meth. It'll help with the obesity by suppressing appetite and speeding up metabolism. But it'll also increase chances of you dead. So no. It's not gonna be good for overall health.

There's the analogy for the politician's argument. The proposal 1 is the regulation proposals. The obesity is the large trade deficit. The overall health is the overall economy.

Just because the proposed regulations would cut down the trade deficit doesn't mean that it would be good for the overall economy. The regulations could have other effects that would be bad for the overall economy. That's what (D) says.

(E) is saying that this argument commits a whole to part flaw. The conclusion descriptor is true enough. It does conclude that "every/each regulation will help the economy" but no where did it say that the entire set of regulations as a whole would help the economy. Who's even thinking about enacting the entire set of regulations? I don't know.

(B) is just descriptively inaccurate. The politician does not assume (take for granted) that reducing the trade deficit is the only way of improving the economy, just that it's one way. If you said "excuse me, but here's some Martian technology from 100 years in the future, that'll help boost your economy" the politician will just be like "cool, thanks buddy!"

LSAT 150 – Section 3 – Question 24

LSAT 150 - Section 3 - Question 24

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 150 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel