PrepTest 115, Section 4, Question 23
Editorial: Given the law of supply and demand,(61 more words not shown)
The editorial's argument is most(8 more words not shown)
- Apresumes, without providing(18 more words not shown)
- Bpresumes, without providing(18 more words not shown)
- Cfails to consider(20 more words not shown)
- Dpresumes, without providing(27 more words not shown)
- Eignores the possibility(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Guaranteed is different from merely possible. The editorial says a pure free market assures maximum total utility, but it explicitly allows other economies to achieve it too. So we shouldn't read the first sentence as saying only a free market can ever reach that outcome.
At first, the conclusion can sound sensible: if one arrangement guarantees the result and others don't, why wouldn't pursuing that arrangement give us the best chance? That is where I'd initially hesitate rather than pretend I already have the flaw pinned down.
What we’re looking for
The question tells us to find the reasoning error. I'll test the descriptions in the answers against two questions: does the editorial make the move described, and would that move create a problem for its conclusion? Keep the conclusion precise. It isn't that a controlled economy can never achieve the result. It's that a country not trying to establish a pure free market isn't following the most promising course.
Working the answers
- A
The editorial discusses a country with a highly controlled economy. It doesn't say every country without a pure free market must have that type of economy. There could be arrangements between those descriptions. A attributes a classification to the author that the argument doesn't require.
- B
How utility is distributed might matter when judging an economy overall. But the conclusion here concerns the approach most likely to maximize the total. We can investigate that narrower goal without assuming it matters more than every other goal. B doesn't identify the mistake in the likelihood claim.
- C
The author already allows that other economies might achieve the result. The conclusion criticizes a course as less likely to succeed, not as incapable of succeeding. C attacks an exclusivity claim the editorial expressly avoids.
- DCorrect
Trying to establish a condition isn't the same as successfully establishing it. That is the step the appealing guarantee can hide.
Suppose establishing a pure free market is extremely difficult. If established, it would guarantee maximum utility, just as the premise says. But an attempt to establish it might fail. A more achievable policy within the controlled economy could have a better chance of producing maximum utility, even though that policy doesn't guarantee it.
For an imagined comparison, a 10 percent chance of reaching the guaranteed-success arrangement needn't beat an 80 percent chance of reaching the desired result through another arrangement. Those numbers illustrate the gap; they aren't facts about economies. The editorial treats the guarantee at the destination as if it also guaranteed that trying to get there was the most promising route.
- E
Other drawbacks could affect whether a pure free market is desirable overall. But the conclusion is specifically about which course is most likely to bring about maximum total utility. A drawback doesn't answer that probability question merely because it matters for a broader policy decision. D addresses the actual inference.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.