PrepTest 154

Incorrect. We don't know this. Too strong. There could be other industries or other countries where this works.

Incorrect. "Any" economic policy? What about, say, free preschool programs? Investment in space exploration? This is much too strong and broad.

Incorrect. Again, way too strong for the premises given. "Significantly" and "enough to compete with foreign rivals" could be totally different quantifications of growth.

Incorrect. Also too strong. We don't know they'll go out of business. We just know they won't grow enough to compete with foreign rivals. Maybe they can survive without being as big as the foreign rivals.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
An economist (usually up to no good on the LSAT) says machinery firms in their country are demanding protection from foreign competition for several more years, on the grounds they need time to grow big enough to compete with foreign rivals. But they've already been getting this protection for 10 years, and if they had the potential to grow big enough to compete with foreign rivals, they could have done so in 10 years' time.

Answer Anticipation:
Pretty solid start to an argument. We have facts (10 years of protection) and an applicable rule (IF growing big enough to compete is possible, THEN 10 years is enough). We're just missing the conclusion. Anticipate that the conclusion will be something along the lines of "these firms probably do not have the potential to grow big enough to compete." There are likely to be trap answers that are too strong; for instance, "No industry should receive protection from foreign competition" would be way too strong.

Answer Explanation:
Finally, something narrow and specific enough to be supported by the premises. Yes, if it's true that 10 years would have been enough if this level of growth were possible, then more protection will also not be enough to allow these businesses to grow sufficiently to compete with foreign rivals. They have already had 10 years.

Key Takeaway:
In this case, all four incorrect answers were too strong and too far-reaching for a stimulus that applies narrowly to machinery firms in the economist's country. Logical force is the key to questions that focus on the implications of a given set of premises.