PrepTest 150, Section 3, Question 24
Politician: Every regulation currently being proposed by the(31 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the politician's(7 more words not shown)
- Atakes for granted(16 more words not shown)
- Btakes for granted(13 more words not shown)
- Cmerely appeals to(13 more words not shown)
- Dfails to consider(14 more words not shown)
- Econcludes that every(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What else would these regulations do?
I'll accept that a large trade deficit hurts the economy and that each proposal would reduce it. But a regulation can have more than one effect. What if one also increases unemployment or inflation enough to outweigh the benefit? We can't judge its overall effect from the one favorable result.
Push the idea further: cutting off trade could reduce a trade deficit, but losing the benefits of trade could create other serious problems. That's why 'reduces the deficit' isn't automatically the same as 'helps the economy.'
What we’re looking for
For the flaw, I'd look for those ignored effects. We don't need to insist that the regulations do nothing else; we need to know whether their other effects cancel out the gain.
Working the answers
- A
The politician doesn't predict what happens if the government takes no action. The deficit could remain exactly where it is and still be a problem the politician wants to reduce. A future increase isn't an assumption needed for this argument.
- B
The argument doesn't claim this is the only way to strengthen the economy. There could be many other helpful policies. The mistake is assuming these particular regulations help overall just because they have one beneficial effect, not ruling out every other way to help.
- C
The committee's authority isn't the only support offered. The politician gives a reason: each regulation reduces a deficit that weakens the economy. That reason is incomplete, but the argument isn't merely 'the committee proposed it, so it must be good.'
- DCorrect
A regulation might reduce the deficit while producing other economic harm. If, for example, its harmful employment effects outweigh the benefit of a smaller deficit, it wouldn't help the economy overall. D identifies the missing comparison between one favorable effect and the regulation's other effects.
The argument doesn't have to assume that no other effects exist at all. It needs those effects not to offset the benefit strongly enough to defeat the conclusion. That is why D's wording is a precise description of the problem.
- E
The premise already says every proposed regulation reduces the deficit. The politician isn't taking a benefit attributed only to the entire package and handing it to each individual regulation. The unsupported jump is from each regulation reducing the deficit to each regulation helping the economy overall.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.