Logical reasoning PrepTest 115 · Section 4 · Question 23

Incorrect. The argument brings up countries without pure free market economies in the conclusion as a specific group—it doesn't assume that they're the only countries out there other than pure free market economy countries.

Incorrect. The argument is about achieving maximum total utility, so it doesn't matter how that's distributed. The distribution is outside the scope of trying to maximize it! This answer about relative importance would be more likely to be correct in an argument about choosing a path that leads to maximum utility instead of distributed utility.

Incorrect. It doesn't fail to consider that there may be other ways to achieve the end—it just assumes that those ways are less likely than the one that guarantees the end.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Pure free market economy - The only type where total utility is guaranteed
Conclusion - A country not working towards a pure free market isn't acting in the most likely way to maximize utility.

Answer Anticipation:
This stimulus throws around two types of logic—conditional ("only", "assured"), and comparative ("most likely"). We should dig into them to see if they lead us to the flaw!

The conclusion here brings up the comparative likelihood of an outcome—maximized total utility. It concludes that any country that isn't trying to bring about a pure free market economy isn't taking the "most likely" action to reach that outcome. As such, we should dig into the premises to see what it says about pure free market economies, and economies that don't fall into that category.

The premise is where the conditional logic shows up, and it's got more depth to it than might initially appear. We learn two things about pure free market economies. The first is that it "assure[s]" maximum total utility is achieved—in other words, it's sufficient to reach that goal. But we also learn that "only" this type of economy can ensure the goal is reached—in other words, it's necessary for maximum total utility to be ensured. So this statement is more or less a biconditional—a pure free market economy is both sufficient and necessary for maximum total utility to be assured.

Since it's essentially a biconditional, that does tell us something about a non-pure free market economy—it doesn't guarantee that maximum total utility will be achieved. However, that's not what the conclusion says—it says that the country that isn't trying to move to a pure free market isn't doing what is most likely to lead to maximum total utility. That's a jump between saying something guarantees an outcome, and saying that trying to get to that thing is the most likely way to achieve the outcome. Maybe trying to switch to a pure free market economy is very likely to fail, and thus working towards a different type of economy is more likely to succeed and lead to maximum total utility, even if it doesn't guarantee it.

Let's find an answer highlighting this assumption.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the jump in saying that bringing about a pure free market economy—a condition that will ensure an end—will be the way to make that end most likely. It's possible that another condition that doesn't guarantee maximum utility but does provide a really good chance of it is more likely to be something achievable by the country—e.g., a move to a mostly free market economy may be much more politically tolerable to the population than a pure free market economy, and thus the chances of that type of economy being adopted are much higher. If the chances of the condition being reached are, let's say, 10x higher than of reaching a pure free market, the chances of maximum utility being reached could also be much higher even if the alternative economy only has a 90% chance of reaching maximum utility. That's a lot of math—focus on this answer jumping between the conditional and comparative logic in the stimulus if you're confused!

Key Takeaway:
Even after spotting the gap in this argument, it can be hard to see what's wrong with the assumption. This is why it's key to understand the types of logic and the key phrases that the LSAT uses to highlight them. Noting that this argument is a jump between a conditional and a statement of likelihood allows us to find the answer even if we're a bit shaky on what's wrong with jumping between them!

Incorrect. The conclusion's scope is limited to discussing the achievement of maximum total utility, not the overall wisdom of moving to an economy that achieves it.