PrepTest 112, Section 3, Question 6
Government official: A satisfactory way of eliminating chronic(85 more words not shown)
The claim that foreign capital(19 more words not shown)
- AIt supports the(10 more words not shown)
- BIt supports the(18 more words not shown)
- CIt is supported(12 more words not shown)
- DIt supports the(19 more words not shown)
- EIt is supported(25 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Food from abroad creates one problem; money from abroad creates another. That explains why the official starts by calling a satisfactory solution difficult.
The food shipments might help people eat now, but the official says effective outside delivery forces local producers and suppliers out of business. That could leave the country dependent on the shipments instead of able to feed itself.
Sending money for development sounds like a different approach, until the official identifies another obstacle: so much cash would enter the economy that inflation would put food out of most citizens' reach.
I'd still want to know about other approaches. What about domestic investment or projects organized by the country's own government? Those are questions to investigate, not established solutions. And saying a satisfactory solution is hard to achieve doesn't mean the country should give up or that no solution is possible.
What we’re looking for
We're asked what the inflation claim does. It explains why the second proposed route—foreign money for long-term projects—also causes trouble. That makes it a reason for the opening claim that solving the food shortage isn't easy. It doesn't explain the separate problem caused by food shipments.
Working the answers
- A
The claim does support the argument, but A identifies the wrong point. The official doesn't conclude that the country must eventually become agriculturally self-sufficient. The point is that a satisfactory answer to the shortage is difficult. A turns a concern about one approach into a requirement the official never states.
- BCorrect
The inflation claim identifies a problem with funding development through foreign capital. Together with the problem of food shipments driving local businesses out, it supports the claim that there is no easy solution. Each kind of assistance has a drawback, which explains the official's caution.
- C
Nothing about a duty to become self-sufficient is offered as evidence that foreign investment would cause inflation. That duty isn't stated in the first place. More fundamentally, the inflation claim supplies support for the main point; C incorrectly treats it as a claim established by another part of the argument.
- D
The inflation claim concerns money going into development projects, not donations of food. It doesn't establish what those food donations will accomplish. The official gives two separate objections to two approaches: food shipments threaten local production, while foreign capital threatens affordability. One objection doesn't support the other.
- E
Forcing local producers out of business explains the concern about long-term self-sufficiency. It isn't presented as the reason that foreign development money would cause inflation. E connects two parts of the argument that instead serve as separate reasons for the same overall conclusion.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.