LSAT 154 – Section 4 – Question 18

LSAT 154 - Section 4 - Question 18

September 2017

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

Target time: 1:27

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
PT154 S4 Q18
+LR
Most strongly supported +MSS
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
6%
157
B
10%
157
C
9%
156
D
3%
152
E
72%
166
147
155
163
 +Harder 147.301 +SubsectionMedium

Economist: Machinery firms in this country argue that in order to grow big enough to compete successfully with foreign rivals, the protection that they have been receiving from foreign competition must be extended for several more years. Yet these firms have been receiving protection from foreign competition for the last ten years. If it were possible for protection from foreign competition to enable this country’s machinery firms to grow big enough to compete successfully with foreign rivals, ten years would be a sufficient time frame for this to happen.

Summary

If protection from foreign competition were possible in order to allow domestic machinery firms to successfully compete with foreign machinery firms, ten years would be a sufficient timeframe for this purpose. However domestic machinery firms have had protection from foreign competition for the last ten years, and these firms claim that this protection must be extended for several more years.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

It is not possible that protection from foreign competition will allow domestic machinery firms to grow big enough to compete with foreign machinery firms.

A
Protection from foreign competition rarely if ever enables firms to grow big enough to compete with foreign rivals.

The Economist’s argument is limited to machinery firms in the Economist’s country. We don’t know whether protection “rarely” allows firms to grow big enough generally. We only know that protection does not allow domestic machinery firms to grow big enough.

B
Ten years is a sufficient time frame for assessing the success of any economic policy.

We don’t know if ten years is sufficient for evaluating any and every economic policy. We only know ten years is sufficient for evaluating one economic policy that applies to domestic machinery firms.

C
None of the machinery firms in the economist’s country has grown significantly over the last ten years.

We don’t know whether or not any machinery firm in the economist’s county has grown “significantly.” We only know that these machinery firms haven’t grown big enough to compete with foreign machinery firms.

D
Most of the machinery firms in the economist’s country will go out of business unless they are protected from foreign competition.

We don’t know whether any of the machinery firms in the Economist’s country will go out of business if these firms are not protected from foreign competition.

E
Protection from foreign competition will not enable machinery firms in the economist’s country to grow big enough to take on foreign rivals.

It is not possible that protection from foreign competition will allow domestic machinery firms to grow big enough to compete since these firms have already been receiving protection for ten years.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 154 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply