PrepTest 146, Section 1, Question 3
Flynn: Allowing people to collect large damage awards(68 more words not shown)
Garcia responds to Flynn's argument(1 more words not shown)
- Aarguing that the(9 more words not shown)
- Bproviding evidence that(8 more words not shown)
- Ccomparing Flynn's argument(11 more words not shown)
- Dcontending that Flynn's(17 more words not shown)
- Eproviding an alternative(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A company facing a large payout has a reason to make its products safer. I can see Flynn's point: the threat of a costly lawsuit could benefit consumers before anyone even files one. We might ask whether a company would instead spend more on lawyers, but Flynn's proposed incentive is understandable.
Garcia points to a cost. An award could be so large that the company closes, leaving employees without jobs and eliminating its production. Notice that 'large awards' and 'sensible limits' aren't opposites. A large award could still fall below a sensible limit. Garcia needn't deny the safety incentive to say that very large payouts can also hurt consumers through the economy.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what Garcia does in response. I'd describe it as pointing out an undesirable consequence of the policy Flynn supports. The two effects could coexist: stronger incentives for safety, but also serious economic harm when an award destroys a company.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Garcia argues that the policy could lead to companies closing, lost jobs, and lost production, which could harm consumers. These are undesirable consequences to weigh against the safety benefit Flynn identifies. The response adds a downside rather than showing that no benefit exists.
- B
Garcia doesn't deny that the possibility of large awards gives corporations an incentive to reduce safety risks. A company could face that incentive and still go out of business after losing a lawsuit. Identifying an additional cost doesn't undermine the premise about the incentive itself.
- C
There is no comparison with another argument. Garcia discusses the consequences of the same damage awards Flynn supports. An analogy would introduce a different situation and use its reasoning to assess this one; Garcia doesn't do that.
- D
Garcia doesn't show that Flynn's reasoning commits Flynn to some incompatible policy. That would require a further step along the lines of 'By your reasoning, you must also support this conflicting policy.' Instead, Garcia identifies a harmful possibility under the policy already being discussed.
- E
Flynn describes a reason to view the policy as beneficial, and Garcia adds a reason it could be harmful. Garcia doesn't explain some observed situation by proposing a different cause. The debate evaluates consequences of a policy; it isn't a contest between explanations for an existing result.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.