Logical reasoning PrepTest 150 · Section 3 · Question 24

Incorrect. The argument doesn't trade in what will happen if nothing is done, just that these proposals could help. If the conclusion stated that the proposals should be passed, or that it's important to pass them instead of doing nothing, then this answer would warrant further consideration.

Incorrect. If the conclusion were that these proposals must be adopted, or that they're the only way to strengthen the economy, then this answer would need to be considered. But instead the conclusion is just that these proposals would work to strengthen the economy, and they don't have to be the only means of doing so in order to work.

Incorrect. The argument gives a reason to believe these proposals would work, by establishing the trade deficit as a drag on the economy, and the proposals as addressing that. It doesn't rely solely on the proposers' authority.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
The current trade deficit is so large that it hurts the economy, and every regulation currently in consideration will lower the trade deficit, so they will all help the economy.

Answer Anticipation:
A change is being proposed—new regulations. While the argument establishes one effect of the regulations—lowered trade deficits—it doesn't discuss any other potential effects, or state that there are no other effects. If those other effects have a negative effect on the economy that is larger than the positive one from the reduction in the trade deficit, the argument falls apart.

Answer Explanation:
This answer brings up the possibility that one part of the legislation will help the economy while another would hurt it, and the latter might have a bigger effect. The argument doesn't establish that the list of impacts is exhaustive, which is an issue for this argument.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever a change is being proposed in an argument on the LSAT, be sure that the author discusses the full extent of its effects. Without specific, limiting language, there's always the potential that there are other effects not accounted for.

Incorrect. Both the premises and the conclusion of the argument talk about every/each regulation, thus establishing that it is talking about them individually instead of as a group. This answer would be correct if the premise established that an economic stimulus package consisting of several regulations would help the economy, so passing any of the regulations individually would do the same.