Reading comp PrepTest 138 · Section 1 · Question 15

Passage

Questions 15-22  .        David Warsh's book describes a great  . contradiction inherent in economic theory since 1776,  . when Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Social Science


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Paradox introduced (Pin Factory vs. Invisible Hand)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Warsh's view: There's a contradiction in Smith's economic theory between the "Pin Factory" and the "Invisible hand" (first and last sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "great contradiction" (first sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Background on Pin Factory (more employees = more efficient) and Invisible Hand (competition leads to public goods)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Smith's views:
      • Pin Factory: Increased size results in increased efficiency, as each employee can produce more when they specialize in one task (first and second sentences)
      • Invisible Hand: Self-interest can promote the common good without anyone intending to (third sentence)
    • Example of Invisible Hand:
      • Businesses sell goods to make money, but end up making people who buy them happy (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Paradox explained (Pin Factory model reduces competition, undermining Invisible Hand model)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparison between Pin Factor and Invisible Hand, according to the author:
      • The Pin Factory's emphasis on increasing returns leads to bigger businesses and eventually results in monopolies (second and third sentences)
      • But the Invisible Hand requires a lot of competition, so it rests on the assumption that returns diminish as businesses get bigger (fourth through last sentences)
    • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to the author:
      • A large business’s ability to achieve larger scale and lower costs causes smaller firms to be driven out of the industry, which eventually causes industries to be dominated by a few monopolies (third and fourth sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "are opposed" (first sentence); "create a natural tendency" (third sentence); "to work properly, there must be many competitors" (fifth sentence); "depends on the assumption that returns to scale are diminishing" (last sentence)

Paragraph 4

  • Paragraph note
    • Marsh on why Pin Factory was de-emphasized by economists (harder to represent mathematically)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Marsh's view:
      • Economists de-emphasized the Pin Factory model because they aspired to represent models mathematically (like science), and the Pin Factory was very hard to represent with math (third through last sentences)
    • Comparison, according to Marsh:
      • The economics of diminishing returns (Invisible Hand) was easy to represent mathematically, while increasing returns (Pin Factory) was very difficult (last sentence)

Paragraph 5

  • Paragraph note
    • Recent update (Economists finally found ways to represent Pin Factory mathematically)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • Economists failed for a long time to describe the Pin Factory, even though the Pin Factory model was apparent in many industries; finally, in the 1970s, economists succeeded in representing the Pin Factory with enough rigor to make it mainstream (first through last sentences)
    • Example of industries that followed the Pin Factory model: railroads (first sentence)
    • Definition of "underground river": increasing returns (third sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "increasing returns obviously characterized many industries" (first sentence); "had finally found ways to describe the Pin Factor with the rigor needed to make it respectable" (last sentence)

Main Point: Since it was seen to contradict the Invisible Hand and was hard to model mathematically, the Pin Factory (increasing economies of scale) was de-emphasized in economics for hundreds of years until recent mathematical models described it and entered the mainstream.

Key Lines?

Paragraph 1, Sentences 1-2 (P1, S1-S2) - A paradox is introduced

P2, S1 - One-half of the paradox is described

P2, S3 - The other half is described

P3, S4-S5 - The paradox is stated

P4, S2-S3 - A question is asked and answered

P5, S3-S4 - A recent development in economics relevant to the paradox

Meta-Structure?

Paradox/Resolution: This passage utilizes a Paradox/Resolution Meta-Structure.* The author starts the passage by introducing a contradiction, which we can view as a paradox. But there's an interesting facet to the paradox here. This paradox surrounds the contradiction between the Pin Factory and the Invisible Hand, as the former assumes increasing returns to scale, but the latter argues for decreasing returns. And while the author does show that the Pin Factory math has been shown to work out and has entered mainstream economic thought, that doesn't resolve the inherent contradiction between the two concepts. If anything, it makes it worse by suggesting that there are increasing returns to scale in some industries, thus undercutting a central assumption of the concept of the Invisible Hand!

So, usually, the main point in a Paradox/Resolution passage is the author's resolution. But here, the author doesn't quite resolve the paradox. So, the main point can't be the resolution. However, the paradox is still central to the passage, and so we should explore what aspect of the paradox was key to this passage. Since the passage focuses much more on the Pin Factory/increasing returns to scale — talking about how it leads to a contradiction, how it was downplayed for centuries, and how it's recently entered mainstream economic thought — that half of the paradox is the main topic of the passage. We summed up the author's thought on this half of the paradox, as you can see from what we wrote above.

*We think that's the best fit for the passage, but there are several other answer options you could go with. Either Debate Meta-Structure — Describing or Resolving a Debate — could work for this passage. The passage also uses a Question/Answer Meta-Structure in the fourth paragraph, but this Meta-Structure could be applied to the entire passage as well. We'll use this as an opportunity to remind you that there's usually more than one Meta-Structure that could fit the passage!

Last Thoughts?

This is a tough passage, both conceptually and in the details. It also has eight questions associated with it, which tells us that the LSAT felt there was a lot to ask about. However, the passage is broken up nicely into paragraphs that each deal with a single and distinct concept, so we're going to rely on our paragraph-by-paragraph notes to ensure that we can find the right information as needed, and we're not going to rely on our memory for these questions — especially for a topic that we're unfamiliar with, our memories are bad! (Unless you're an Econ major, in which case, this is a nice present!)

Question prompt

Which one of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Social Science

Strategy Overview

Reiterate the main point as we summarized it after reading through the passage, then find the answer that best matches it

Answer Anticipation

As discussed in the Meta-Structure section above, this passage utilizes a Paradox/Resolution Meta-Structure. In such a Meta-Structure, the main point is generally the author's resolution. However, in this passage, the author doesn't quite resolve the paradox between the Pin Factory and the Invisible Hand. While the author does show that the Pin Factory math has been shown to work out and has entered mainstream economic thought (P5, S4), that doesn't resolve the inherent contradiction between the two concepts. If anything, it makes it worse by suggesting that there are increasing returns to scale in some industries, thus undercutting a central assumption of the concept of the Invisible Hand!So, the main point can't be the resolution of the paradox. However, the paradox is still central to the passage, and so we should explore what aspect of the paradox was key to this passage. Since the passage focuses much more on the Pin Factory/increasing returns to scale — talking about how it leads to a contradiction, how it was downplayed for centuries, and how it's recently entered mainstream economic thought — that half of the paradox is the main topic of the passage. We summed up the author's central point by saying: "Since it was seen to contradict the Invisible Hand and was hard to model mathematically, the Pin Factory (increasing economies of scale) was de-emphasized in economics for hundreds of years until recent mathematical models described it and entered the mainstream."Let's find an answer choice that captures these ideas.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Mainstream economists have always Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this answer choice contain the same ideas as our anticipation?

    No. This isn't even accurate. The passage states that the theory of diminishing returns (Invisible Hand) dominated economic theory for 200 years (P4, S1), contradicting this answer.

  2. B
    The functioning of the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this answer choice contain the same ideas as our anticipation?

    Not quite, but this is a popular answer choice. However, there are a few unignorable issues.

    First, this answer doesn't address the Pin Factory at all, and the history of it and its recent acceptance are much more central to the passage than the discussion of the Invisible Hand. This deviation from our anticipation is enough reason to cross off (B).

    Second, there's a slight detail shift here that invalidates this answer, as well. While Paragraph 4 highlights the elegant math behind diminishing returns (P4, S5), that's not the same as the Invisible Hand. The passage notes that the Invisible Hand rests on "the assumption that returns to scale are diminishing," but that just brings up diminishing returns as a part of this theory (P3, S6). The overall theory might be accepted for a reason other than the mathematical rigor behind diminishing returns.

  3. C
    Recent developments in mathematics Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this answer choice contain the same ideas as our anticipation?

    Not quite. We didn't anticipate that the Pin Factory's math is "even more rigorous[]" than the Invisible Hand's. That's enough reason to cross off (C).

    Besides, the passage ends by stating that economists had, by the ‘70s, modeled the Pin Factory well enough for it to enter the mainstream (P5, S4). But they had already done that for diminishing returns/the Invisible Hand several hundred years ago (P4, S1), so we can't support an answer choice that says the models for the Invisible Hand are "more rigorous" than the latter.

  4. D
    Adam Smith was the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this answer choice contain the same ideas as our anticipation?

    Nope. This places way too much emphasis on Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand theory. We can eliminate it because it completely ignores the other half of the paradox — the Pin Factory — which is much more central to the passage!

  5. E
    Economists have, until somewhat Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    (E) Does this answer choice contain the same ideas as our anticipation?

    Finally, an answer choice that gets close to our anticipation.

    That said, this is a tough answer, as it doesn't address the Invisible Hand at all, and it doesn't directly address the paradox. However, if we work through the passage, paragraph by paragraph, the author steps out of other viewpoints only a couple times. Paragraph 1 introduces Warsh's book. Paragraph 2 talks through Smith's viewpoint. Paragraph 3 brings up the struggle between the two theories that Warsh mentioned. It's in Paragraph 4 where we see the author ask a question of their own, even if Warsh is the one to provide an answer. And then Paragraph 4 is about recent developments around the Pin Factory, where Warsh isn't mentioned at all. So, while the author agrees with and relies on Warsh's argument, the author's argument is about the history of the Pin Factory — its initial dismissal for lack of mathematical backing and its eventual acceptance. This answer reflects the author's views on that topic, so it's the correct answer.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 5%
  2. B 15%
  3. C 11%
  4. D 2%
  5. E Credited 67%

Deeper help

Ask follow-ups on any step

Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.

Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.

Discussion