PrepTest 140

Incorrect. The goal is to strengthen the banking system, not necessarily sell all the banks. This answer would be a lot more tempting if you didn't spend the time to properly rephrase the conclusion to represent the stated goal!

Incorrect. Without knowing if this company is one of the former owners, this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The goal stated is to strengthen the banking system, not the economy. Additionally, the agency is trying to strengthen the system by selling the banks—it's not selling the banks because the economy has strengthened.

Incorrect. The financial strength of the banks is out of scope of the argument—only the ownership of these banks is relevant based on the rule and goal established.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Completion

Stimulus Summary:
Situation: The government bought some banks and now wants to sell them.
Goal: Strengthen the banking system.
Rule: Former owners buy the banks back → not Strengthen
Conclusion: Unlikely to achieve goal

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion here references the goal, so we should rephrase the conclusion: The agency is unlikely to strengthen the banking system. Luckily, there's a premise that guarantees the banking system won't be strengthened—if the former owners buy the banks back, then it won't be strengthened. However, the argument never establishes that the former owners are likely to buy those banks back. So, in order to complete this argument and allow the conclusion to be properly drawn, the correct answer will state that those former owners are the likely purchasers.

Answer Explanation:
If all the bidders are former owners of the banks, then the winner will be a former owner, thus triggering the conditional established in the stimulus and guaranteeing the banking system won't be strengthened.

Key Takeaway:
First, noted goals are always relevant to a given question on the LSAT. Second, when the conclusion references an idea abstractly, take the time to rephrase it to say what the conclusion actually means. Here, the conclusion referenced a goal, and it was a lot easier to rule out some trap answers by rephrasing it to include what that goal was.