PrepTest 124, Section 2, Question 5

ParadoxDifficulty5 of 5
The questionFull text in your LawHub copy of PrepTest 124

In the city of Glasgow, Scotland, trade doubled(20 more words not shown)

Each of the following, if(12 more words not shown)

Reading the argument

Trade doubled. Let's be careful about why.

The bank opened in 1750, and trade doubled between then and 1765. Regulations arrived in 1765, at the end of that period. It's tempting to tell a story about unregulated banking creating a boom, but these dates alone don't prove that story. Other changes could have helped trade grow.

What we’re looking for

The question asks for the exception: four answers could help explain the increase, and one cannot. An explanation doesn't have to mention banking just because the passage does. It does need to help explain trade growing during the period we're given. Keep that timeline in view as we test the possible causes.

Working the answers

  • A

    Increased trade between England and Scotland could help explain increased trade in Glasgow. The technological changes began before our period, and their effects could contribute to the later growth. This answer doesn't have to explain the opening of the bank. The outcome we're explaining is more trade, and A supplies a possible source of it.

  • B

    Imports are part of trade. If lower tariffs brought more foreign goods into Glasgow beginning in 1752, that could contribute to the city's trade increasing between 1750 and 1765. The proposed change arrives during the right period and has the relevant effect.

  • C

    Easier transactions can help people do more business. The bank encouraged paper money, and paper money made those transactions more efficient. That gives us a possible connection between the bank's arrival and the growth in trade. It doesn't have to account for every bit of the doubling to contribute to an explanation.

  • D

    Better roads could make it easier to move goods between Glasgow and other places in Scotland. The improvements happened between 1750 and 1758, within the period of growth. Both the timing and the effect fit the change we're trying to explain.

  • E
    Correct

    The regulations arrived in 1765. Their economic effects would follow their introduction, while the doubling described in the passage happened in the period leading up to that point. A later boost cannot explain the earlier growth. This might explain an increase after regulations began, but that is not the increase the question asks us to explain.

More Paradox questions

Learn the LSAT our way

Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.

See plans and pricing

HFL LSAT Advisor

Online

Hi! I'm HFL's LSAT advisor.

Tell me your score and goal and I'll point you to the right plan — or ask me anything.