PrepTest 137, Section 3, Question 22
Consumer advocate: There is no doubt that the(34 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AThe government can(8 more words not shown)
- BThe government is(8 more words not shown)
- CConsumer demand for(9 more words not shown)
- DThe government has(12 more words not shown)
- EIf the government(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If a government policy increases demand, and that extra demand raises gasoline prices, blaming the policy sounds reasonable. Those are the two links the advocate gives us.
What we’re looking for
We should still read the wording closely. The first link mentions fuel and the second mentions gasoline. Does that leave the connection unstated? Here the passage expressly says the increased demand caused gasoline prices to rise, so we should accept that causal link. The necessary-assumption question asks what the argument still relies on when it moves from this sequence of events to responsibility. We don't need to invent an alternative cause or deny a premise just because we're looking for an assumption.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The government acts through an intermediate step: its policies increase demand, which in turn raises prices. To hold the government responsible on that basis, the argument must allow responsibility for an indirect consequence.
Imagine a rule saying the government is responsible only for prices it sets directly, never for a price change caused through consumer demand. Under that rule, all the stated events could occur and the advocate's conclusion still wouldn't follow. A rules out that obstacle. The government can bear responsibility through the causal chain described.
- B
We aren't told the higher prices were unforeseen. Officials might have predicted exactly this result. The argument needs responsibility for this indirect effect, not a general commitment about some consequences officials failed to anticipate.
- C
The premise says increased demand caused prices to rise in this case. It doesn't need a rule that increased demand always raises prices. There could be other situations where supply rises enough to keep prices steady without changing the causal account given here.
- D
An obligation to prevent excessive demand is different from responsibility for causing a price increase. We can attribute a consequence to an action without first establishing a duty to prevent that consequence. The advocate's argument doesn't depend on the proposed obligation.
- E
Gasoline prices could change for other reasons even when government policies don't increase demand. For example, a supply change could affect prices. That possibility doesn't undermine attributing this particular increase to the causal sequence the passage states. The argument needn't assume prices otherwise tend to stay stable.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.