PrepTest 130, Section 1, Question 23
Politician: We should impose a tariff on imported(52 more words not shown)
The politician's recommendation most closely(8 more words not shown)
- AA country should(10 more words not shown)
- BThe interests of(9 more words not shown)
- CSocial concerns should(6 more words not shown)
- DA country should(15 more words not shown)
- EGovernment intervention sometimes(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A tariff would make imported fruit cost consumers more than domestic fruit. That may protect domestic growers, but consumers give up the chance to buy the better, cheaper imported fruit described in the passage.
Imagine the fruit is strawberries. The domestic growers gain protection from competition, while people buying strawberries face the added cost on imports. Why should that trade-off be worth making?
What we’re looking for
The politician's answer is a way of life. Without the tariff, domestic growers would leave the business, the land would go to more lucrative industrial uses, and a distinctive farming life would disappear. So the recommendation gives preserving that life priority over the economic advantages the passage describes. We aren't asked to decide whether the tariff is wise; we need the principle that matches this choice of priorities.
Working the answers
- A
The politician doesn't establish that the tariff serves the country's overall economic interest. The passage acknowledges cheaper, better foreign fruit and more lucrative alternative land uses. The stated justification concerns preserving a way of life, which isn't the same as maximizing national economic advantage.
- B
“Always” is too broad. The politician favors fruit growers in this situation for a particular social reason. That doesn't establish a rule that producers' interests should defeat consumers' interests in every industry and every circumstance.
- CCorrect
Preserving a unique way of life is a social concern. The recommendation gives that concern priority even though imported fruit is better and cheaper and industrial land use would be more lucrative. “Sometimes” fits the scope: this example supports allowing a social concern to take precedence in a case, not a claim that it should always do so.
- D
The conflict isn't simply domestic citizens versus foreign citizens. Domestic consumers also have interests here, including access to better fruit at lower prices. The tariff favors one domestic group while imposing a cost on another. The politician's reason for doing that is the growers' way of life, not an undifferentiated preference for all domestic citizens.
- E
The argument doesn't claim that intervention creates greater economic efficiency. It recommends the tariff despite the economic attractions of importing fruit and converting farmland. The benefit it emphasizes is social preservation, so E describes a different justification.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.