PrepTest 143, Section 4, Question 10
Economist: If the belief were to become widespread(68 more words not shown)
The economist's statements, if true,(8 more words not shown)
- AIncreased knowledge of(10 more words not shown)
- BAn individual's belief(15 more words not shown)
- CGovernments should never(4 more words not shown)
- DSocietal demand for(7 more words not shown)
- EIn general, people(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Learning the truth could lead to a bad outcome? That's the surprising implication of the economist's account.
I might initially question the claim about job loss. Someone can lose a job because a recession forces layoffs, but an individual's performance could also matter. Still, this question tells us to accept the economist's statements as true. We need to follow the proposed consequences, rather than settle our own views about why people lose jobs.
What we’re looking for
The economist calls the social-forces explanation correct. If people widely recognized that explanation, they would demand more government control to protect them. The economist then says such extensive control would produce an economic disaster. Put those pieces together: better understanding of job loss could set people on a path toward a harmful government response. That is what I would look for in the choices.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Increased knowledge could lead to economic disaster through the sequence the economist describes: people recognize the proposed cause of job loss, demand government protection against it, and the resulting extensive control would be disastrous.
The word “could” fits. Growing demand isn't itself a guarantee that the government will adopt the policy. But the statements describe a route by which understanding the cause of job loss could help bring about the harmful result.
- B
We haven't been told that confidence protects someone from impersonal social forces, let alone that it is the only reliable protection. A person could believe strongly in their abilities and still face the layoffs described by the economist's view. This answer adds a solution the passage doesn't give.
- C
The economist warns against extensive government control. That doesn't establish that every form of government intervention is harmful or should be forbidden. A limited regulation could be acceptable even if the much broader control described here would cause disaster.
- D
The demand would grow if the belief became widespread. We aren't told that the belief has become widespread or that the predicted growth is happening now. A statement about what would happen under a condition doesn't establish that the condition has occurred.
- E
The military-invasion comparison concerns the role people might want the government to play: protection against forces outside the individual. It doesn't establish a general rule about how responsible people should feel for economic disasters. E changes the subject of the comparison from government protection to personal responsibility.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.