Logical reasoning PrepTest 117 · Section 2 · Question 16

Incorrect. The Sociologist doesn't discuss how voters see themselves, just how they should be viewed.

Incorrect. The author's conclusion is about supporters of democracy and marketplace regulation, not the democracy/regulation itself. Additionally, the argument is that support for both is compatible; that's not the same as saying that someone can't believe both simultaneously (incompatible").

Incorrect. This is the viewpoint of the Economists, and the Sociologist pivots away from their view.

Incorrect. This is half of the distinction that the author uses to rebut the opposing point, so it's a premise.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Main Point

Stimulus Summary:
Economists: Democracy should have unregulated markets

Sociologist: The market and voters ask different questions, so you can support democracy and market regulation, and thus the Economists ignore this difference.

Answer Anticipation:
When an argument features an opposing point, the main point of the argument will almost always be the author's opinion of that viewpoint.

Here, the argument starts with what some Economists believe. From that, it pivots to the Sociologist's view on that opinion—it ignores a crucial distinction. Since this is the author's opinion of the opposing point, it's likely the correct answer.

The following sentences explain a distinction between the private consumer and the public citizen, so they support the author's opinion that the Economists ignore that distinction.

The final sentence is a conclusion (Hence"), so we now have two conclusions that we need to analyze to see which is the main point. And, unlike most other arguments on the LSAT, the last sentence ends up being the main point!

How can we tell here? Well, the author's opinion of the opposing point is that it's missing a crucial distinction. And that distinction, according to the rest of the argument, actually supports a separate conclusion—that political democracy and marketplace regulation are compatible. So the Sociologist's opinion isn't that the Economists's argument is flawed because it ignores a crucial distinction, but rather that that distinction shows that their conclusion is wrong. Since the last sentence, by taking a separate stance from the Economists, also highlights the Sociologist's opinion of the opposing point—that it's wrong, not just invalid—it's the main point of the argument.

To abstract this a bit, the argument goes something like this:
Economists believe something, but they ignore an important piece of information, and that information actually supports the opposite conclusion.

The argument builds on the invalidity of the conclusion to have an opinion itself on the topic, and so let's find that opinion as an answer.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the Sociologist's conclusion—that one can support both democracy and market regulation. It's therefore the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
If the author expresses an opinion on an opposing point, it's almost always the main point of the argument. But almost always isn't always. When the author goes on to express her own opinion on the topic—especially when it moves beyond an opinion that the other viewpoint is invalid—that's likely the main point of the argument, overriding the rule of thumb.