PrepTest 102, Section 2, Question 24
Trade official: Country X deserves economic retribution for(40 more words not shown)
The argument depends on assuming(6 more words not shown)
- AAgricultural components of(8 more words not shown)
- BThe ability to(16 more words not shown)
- CWe should never(11 more words not shown)
- DIn most cases,(13 more words not shown)
- EWe should balance(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
We want to punish Country X, but we still want the food it sells us.
I can see the tension. Refusing to sell agricultural equipment might look like a way to retaliate, yet our own consumers want agricultural imports from X. Imagine the equipment helps X keep producing food we buy. Cutting it off could work against our own interests. That is the sort of practical concern the official gives priority in this case, despite saying X deserves punishment.
What we’re looking for
So are we willing to retaliate only partway? Apparently the official is willing to make an exception for this sale. The necessary-assumption question asks for a principle the argument needs. I don't have a precise rule predicted yet, but I want to preserve both sides of the reasoning: punishment may be deserved, while the consequences for our own country can still matter. We shouldn't turn this one exception into a universal rule before looking at the choices.
Working the answers
- A
The argument doesn't rank agricultural goods above every other kind of commodity. Perhaps some nonagricultural imports are even more important. We only know that demand for these agricultural imports is an overriding concern in this decision. A supplies a comparison with other goods that the argument doesn't need.
- B
This ranks keeping popular products available below entering international markets. The official's stated concern is preserving access to agricultural imports despite a reason to punish X. We aren't told that access to foreign markets takes priority over keeping those products available at home. B doesn't supply the balance the official's recommendation relies on.
- C
Never jeopardizing our people's interests is much stronger than protecting them in this case. The official could think some deserved punishments are worth a domestic cost while deciding this particular sale should proceed. C would help defend the sale, but the argument need not accept that absolute rule. A helpful principle and a required principle are different things.
- D
One decision doesn't tell us what should take priority in most cases. The official could favor punishment most of the time, rarely, or about half the time and still support this exception. We aren't given a general frequency or ranking that makes D necessary.
- ECorrect
We should weigh the justice of the action against its consequences for our interests. The justice side is the claim that X deserves economic retribution. The consequences side is our demand for X's agricultural products. The official needs those consequences to count in deciding whether to proceed with this sale.
Balancing them doesn't mean giving them equal weight or always choosing our own interests. It leaves room for this case's practical concern to outweigh the otherwise deserved punishment, which is the move the argument makes.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.