Logical reasoning PrepTest 132 · Section 4 · Question 14

Incorrect. Political expediency is out of scope as to whether there will be benefits to park visitors. A politician could alienate all constituents in pushing for national park privatization, and that privatization could still benefit park visitors.

Incorrect. While this answer highlights problems with privatization for the telecom industry as far as employees and business-owners are concerned, it has still benefited the consumers, and that's the only consideration relevant to this argument.

Incorrect. People can benefit from something without being aware of it, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The conclusion is that park visitors would benefit from privatization—not that the benefit would be as large as it was in the telecom industry.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Privatization helped consumers in the telecom industry by promoting competition, so privatizing the national parks will probably also benefit consumers.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument relies on bringing up one situation and the outcome of it in order to justify doing the same thing in another situation. On the LSAT, arguments frequently rely on comparisons, and they're generally flawed in that the argument doesn't show the comparison to be sufficiently complete to allow the conclusion to be validly drawn.

Here, there's no indication that the national park system is in any way similar to the telecom industry as far as competition leading to benefits for consumers. To weaken this argument, therefore, we should find a relevant difference between the two "industries" that would call into question the ability of privatization/competition to lead to better outcomes for park visitors.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights a relevant difference between the national parks system and the telecom industry. In that industry, it was noted that privatization led to increased competition, and that was what led to consumer benefits. If the national park system will see less competition after privatization, then the benefits to park visitors is called into question.

Key Takeaway:
Comparisons are common on the LSAT. Many arguments will reach their conclusion based on two things being similar or different. When you're tasked with weakening an argument that relies on two things being similar, the correct answer will generally bring up a relevant difference.