LSAT 84 – Section 3 – Question 24

LSAT 84 - 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
PT84 S3 Q24
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
A
2%
155
B
11%
155
C
2%
152
D
58%
165
E
26%
160
152
160
167
 +Hardest 148.057 +SubsectionMedium

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!"

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 84 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logic Games

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply