PrepTest 152

This answer strengthens an argument that it's important to address these issues, since they're in a positive feedback loop, but it doesn't strengthen the argument that we should do so through this particular method.

This answer increases the political feasibility of the method suggested, but it doesn't strengthen the argument that it's the right method. The politically easiest solution is quite often the wrong move!

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Arguments

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Income inequality and immobility lead to divisive political factions and bad governance, which are bad for democracy. Economic expansion increases opportunity for economic mobility. Therefore, democratic societies should promote economic expansion constantly.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument establishes income inequality and immobility as bad for democracy. It then states one method of supposedly alleviating these problems: economic expansion.

There are two issues here. First, maybe the opportunities available through economic expansion make the problem worse. If the opportunities all accrue to the rich and middle class, that could make income inequality worse. Second, maybe there are some other impacts not stated in the stimulus that would lead to worse outcomes for democracy.

Any answer that rules out one of these two issues (or provides another reason that economic expansion is good for democracy) would serve to strengthen this argument.

Answer Explanation: If economic opportunities from economic expansion disproportionately benefit those at lower income levels, then income inequality will shrink, and the argument states income inequality is bad for democracy. That strengthens an argument in favor of economic expansion (and it lines up with our first anticipation).

Key Takeaway:
Problems, solutions, and author recommendations are a recurring and important feature on the LSAT. When you see an argument structured around these things, focus on the author's solution and why the author thinks it will work.

Rephrasing this answer, it states that investments by the 1% are a necessary condition for economic expansion. Listing requirements for a solution—whether they are hard or easy to achieve—doesn't impact an argument about whether a solution is what should be done, unless the argument itself is comparing different methods and states that "ease of use" is a relevant factor. That doesn't happen here, so this answer can be ruled out.