PrepTest 124, Section 2, Question 11
In order to maintain a high standard of(58 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(11 more words not shown)
- Aa nation that(17 more words not shown)
- Bmany nations are(8 more words not shown)
- Cthe rise in(20 more words not shown)
- Da rise in(16 more words not shown)
- Enations often experience(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe the country found oil. Maybe it developed useful new technology. Why assume better living conditions must have come from infrastructure spending?
Keep the two claims about infrastructure separate. Functioning infrastructure is required to maintain a high standard of living. Major investment in improving infrastructure is one way to raise the standard of living. The second claim doesn't say it's the only way.
Nor is a rising standard of living necessarily a high one. Conditions could improve from poor to somewhat better while still falling short of a high standard. The opening requirement doesn't establish that every improvement requires a large new investment.
What we’re looking for
Imagine a country that already has usable roads and water systems, then gains wealth from newly discovered resources. Its people could become better off without a major new infrastructure project. For the flaw question, I want an answer pointing out those other possible routes to improvement. Showing that infrastructure investment works doesn't show that nothing else does.
Working the answers
- A
This says a country could avoid a decline without investing. Its standard of living might simply stay the same. Our conclusion concerns a country whose standard is rising and claims to identify what produced that rise. Merely avoiding a decline doesn't expose the missing possibility as directly as an increase from another source would.
- B
Whether countries can afford the investment is a different question. The argument says investment improves living conditions, then tries to infer past investment from observed improvement. Showing that some countries can't make the investment doesn't by itself identify another way the observed improvement could happen.
- C
The argument already says the reward arrives 'over time.' Its conclusion doesn't insist that the investment happened last year or that the benefit appeared immediately. A long delay is compatible with the proposed explanation; the problem is assuming that this explanation must be the right one.
- DCorrect
Better living conditions could have another source. Natural resources, new technology, or improved education might help people become better off without major infrastructure investment. The argument treats one way to produce a rise as though every rise must have come that way.
- E
A crisis might force a country to spend money elsewhere. That tells us why it might not invest in infrastructure, but it doesn't explain the mistake in identifying the cause of a rise in living standards. We need the possibility that the rise comes from something other than the investment.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.