PrepTest 117, Section 3, Question 5
In some countries, there is a free flow(54 more words not shown)
The conclusion follows logically if(7 more words not shown)
- AIt is more(19 more words not shown)
- BEconomic crises become(17 more words not shown)
- CIn nations in(16 more words not shown)
- DThe higher the(14 more words not shown)
- EA small elite(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Keeping people uninformed sounds bad. Does it make economic crises happen more often?
That's the connection the argument hasn't established. The latter countries are the second group mentioned: the countries where a small elite controls information. We know most people there are denied vital information about things affecting their welfare. We don't yet know how that changes the frequency of economic crises.
Imagine that the ordinary person knows little about the bond market, but the people making economic policy have the relevant information and make good decisions. I'm not endorsing that arrangement. I'm asking whether it could exist without producing more crises. Disliking the restriction on information doesn't prove the particular economic consequence the author predicts.
What we’re looking for
We need an assumption that makes the conclusion follow. Connect the reduction in information available to the public with an increase in the frequency of crises. A rule saying that less available information means more frequent crises would do the job. A claim that the system is unfair, or that the elite benefits, would leave the economic prediction unproved.
Working the answers
- A
This compares who is likely to suffer from a crisis. The conclusion compares how often crises happen. Powerless people could suffer more whenever a crisis occurs, whether the country has a crisis every year or hardly ever. A doesn't connect restricted information to greater frequency.
- BCorrect
This provides the missing connection: as less information about factors affecting welfare becomes available to the population, economic crises become more frequent. The restricted-information countries have the condition described by the rule, so the rule supports the predicted increase in crises relative to countries with a free flow of information.
- C
We were told a small elite controls the information, not necessarily the government. C therefore describes a group we haven't established these countries belong to.
It also says crises are common, whereas the conclusion says they are more frequent than in other countries. Crises could be common in both groups, or even more common in the countries with freely available information. C doesn't establish the required comparison.
- D
Having information and participating in decisions are different things. A person could be informed without getting a say, or get a say without being informed. We aren't told which countries have greater participation. D also doesn't explain how better decisions translate into the particular difference in crisis frequency we need.
- E
The elite might use its control for its own benefit while keeping the economy quite stable. Or that manipulation might cause trouble. E doesn't settle which occurs, much less establish more frequent crises than in other countries. It supplies a possible motive for withholding information, not the missing economic connection.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
- PrepTest 117, Section 2, Question 13Sufficient Assumption
- PrepTest 117, Section 4, Question 26Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 10, Question 1Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 12, Question 4Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 13, Question 1Sufficient Assumption
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.