Reading comp PrepTest 138 · Section 1 · Question 18

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

It can be inferred Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: C

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

Question Type

Social Science

Strategy Overview

Review the main point and any relevant parts of the passage and notes, if necessary, to anticipate what would need to occur to make the Pin Factor remain an "underground river"

Answer Anticipation

For questions that ask us to infer, from a few details in the passage, what must be true in a novel situation, we can start by quickly finding and reviewing those details. Once we review that part of the passage, we can anticipate what might happen in the hypothetical situation described. We should consider how the hypothetical situation applies to what we reviewed and whether it might follow a similar or distinct pattern to that described in the passage.This question asks us what would need to be true for the Pin Factor remain an "underground river." The sentence that includes the phrase "underground river" is in the fifth paragraph, which we can review if we need a reminder of what that phrase means. In that part of the passage, we learn that the "underground river" refers to the Pin Factory being outside mainstream economic thought before it "surfaced" in the 1970s (P5, S3). So, this question is asking us what must be true to prevent the Pin Factor from surfacing into mainstream economic thought.Well, what caused the Pin Factory to surface from the underground river. Our main point, our note for the fifth paragraph, and the fifth paragraph's text all provide the answer: economists had "finally found ways to describe" the model "with the rigor needed to make it respectable" (P5, S4). So, had economists not succeeded in describing the model with rigorous enough math to make it respectable, it wouldn't have gone mainstream. Let's find an answer stating that.

Answer choices

  1. A
    the fact that economics Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this answer choice say the Pin Factory would remain an underground river if economists had not succeeded in describing the model with rigorous enough math to make it respectable?

    No. In fact, if (A) were true, the Pin Factory may have never been an "underground river" in the first place. Paragraph 4 notes that economics has always aspired to be considered a science, trying to use mathematical rigor and clarity to accomplish this (P4, S4-S5). But if they didn't aspire to this, then the failure of the Pin Factory to have rigorous mathematical descriptions wouldn't have prevented it from entering the mainstream of economic theory. So, were it not for these aspirations, the Pin Factory model would have ceased to be an "underground river" earlier, making this answer wrong.

  2. B
    David Warsh's analysis of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this answer choice say the Pin Factory would remain an underground river if economists had not succeeded in describing the model with rigorous enough math to make it respectable?

    Nope. So we can quickly cross off (B). Besides, Warsh's book describes the contradiction in economic theory — that the Pin Factory and Invisible Hand rely on contradictory assumptions — but he did nothing to resolve that issue, and there's no indication that his work drove economists to model the Pin Factory to a level that would meet the level of rigor necessary to bring it into the mainstream.

  3. C
    economists' success in representing Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem

    (C) Does this answer choice say the Pin Factory would remain an underground river if economists had not succeeded in describing the model with rigorous enough math to make it respectable?

    Yes! We can justifiably select (C) and advance to the following question. The passage concludes by saying that the "underground river" of the Pin Factory model "surfaced into the mainstream" when economists were able to describe it with enough mathematical rigor to make it respectable (P5, S4). So, if these economists had not described the Pin Factor with this rigor, the Pin Factory model would continue to be an "underground river." This answer is, therefore, correct.

  4. D
    a sudden increase in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this answer choice say the Pin Factory would remain an underground river if economists had not succeeded in describing the model with rigorous enough math to make it respectable?

    No. We can quickly eliminate this answer chioce. Besides, the passage notes that the Pin Factory model/increasing returns characterized "many enterprises" (P5, S1), but there's no indication this was a recent phenomenon that allowed the model predicting it to surface to the mainstream. Rather, in providing the example of railroads, which have been around for quite some time, the author suggests that a tendency to monopoly isn't something that just happened recently.

  5. E
    a lowering of the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this answer choice say the Pin Factory would remain an underground river if economists had not succeeded in describing the model with rigorous enough math to make it respectable?

    Nope. The passage states that the Pin Factory model was "finally" described with "the rigor needed to make it respectable" (P5, S4), not that that standard was lowered.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 3%
  2. B 3%
  3. C Credited 89%
  4. D 4%
  5. E 2%

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

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.