LR Drill Set 4, Question 6
Professor: The economic measures proposed by our country's(37 more words not shown)
The professor's argument is most(12 more words not shown)
- Athe ruling party(19 more words not shown)
- Beconomic measures that(19 more words not shown)
- Cthe sector of(22 more words not shown)
- Dthe proposed economic(20 more words not shown)
- Esome economic measures(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why can't a benefit to one sector also help the economy as a whole?
Large profits for a particular industry sound promising, but I would want to know what comes with them. Perhaps the policy hurts other industries. Perhaps it has other costs. On the other hand, a successful sector might invest, improve its products, or lower prices in ways that help people outside that sector too.
Imagine the sector is car manufacturing. A policy could help those businesses and also make useful cars cheaper to buy. That's a possibility to test, not something the passage establishes. It shows why “this sector benefits” doesn't settle whether the broader economy benefits.
The professor says a policy must benefit the economy as a whole before it should be approved. Let's accept that requirement. To reject this proposal on that basis, the professor needs to show that the requirement isn't met. Pointing to one beneficiary doesn't do that.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks for an overlooked possibility. My prediction is that the sector's windfall and a benefit to the overall economy can happen together. We don't have to prove the policy deserves approval; we just need to challenge the professor's stated reason for rejecting it.
Working the answers
- A
Motives and effects are different. The ruling party might be trying to help its friends and still propose something that benefits the overall economy. It might also have admirable motives and propose something harmful. The professor's rule concerns the policy's benefit, so a claim about why it was proposed doesn't identify this gap.
- BCorrect
A policy can produce windfall profits for one sector and benefit the economy as a whole. The professor treats the first fact as if it rules out the second, but never establishes that conflict. If both benefits occur, the proposal meets the requirement the professor used to reject it.
That still doesn't prove approval is mandatory. The rule makes overall benefit a requirement for approval; it doesn't say meeting that one requirement settles every consideration. B undermines this reason for rejection without having to establish a complete case for the policy.
- C
Which political party the beneficiaries belong to doesn't tell us the effect on the whole economy. Opposition-party businesses might thrive under a policy that helps other sectors too. The argument's standard is economic benefit, not the political identity of the people receiving profits.
- D
Benefits outside economics could matter in a broader policy discussion. But the professor specifically requires an economic benefit to the economy as a whole. A noneconomic benefit doesn't show that requirement is met. D therefore doesn't answer the particular reason the professor gives for rejecting the measure.
- E
Some other measures might provide neither kind of benefit. That tells us nothing about whether this proposal, which does provide a sector windfall, could also help the broader economy. The existence of unsuccessful policies doesn't establish that these two benefits cannot coincide here.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.