PrepTest 132, Section 4, Question 14
Politician: It has been proposed that the national(53 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(7 more words not shown)
- AIt would not(26 more words not shown)
- BThe privatization of(21 more words not shown)
- CThe vast majority(17 more words not shown)
- DPrivatizing the national(22 more words not shown)
- EThe privatization of(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Can I switch national parks the way I switch phone companies?
With phone service, customers can choose among companies offering an alternative way to make calls. A particular national park is a particular place. If I want to see its geysers, another company can't simply create those same geysers somewhere else. That makes me question whether the benefits of privatizing one industry carry over to the other.
The politician's evidence is more specific than “private companies do things well.” Competition improved service and lowered prices in telecommunications. To predict similar benefits for park visitors, the argument needs the park situation to resemble the phone situation in a way that supports that result.
What we’re looking for
For the weakener, look for a relevant difference between the two. Questions about which company should get a park might concern us, but the conclusion we're testing is about benefits to visitors. Keep the objection aimed there.
Working the answers
- A
A bad political move could still benefit visitors. The “even if” part asks us to separate political expedience from improvements in service and fees; it doesn't show that visitors would lose out. Political advantage isn't the conclusion we're testing.
- B
Job losses and economic instability in telecommunications don't establish that its customers failed to benefit. A policy can hurt employees while lowering consumers' prices. The analogy concerns consumer benefits, so these effects on the industry don't directly undermine the predicted benefit for park visitors.
- C
People don't have to understand a proposal to benefit from its effects. I can benefit from a computer without understanding how it works. Likewise, visitors could receive better service or lower fees without knowing why the management changed.
- D
A smaller benefit is still a benefit. This answer explicitly says park visitors would benefit, just less than telephone customers did. The politician never promised an equal number of beneficiaries or an equally large improvement. D limits the size of the result without challenging the result the conclusion actually predicts.
- ECorrect
Competition was the reason privatization helped telephone customers. If privatizing parks produces much less competition, we have less reason to expect the same pressure for better service and lower prices.
E doesn't have to show that there would be no competition or no benefit at all. It weakens the comparison by reducing the force of the very mechanism the politician relies on. That makes the predicted visitor benefit less well supported.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.