PrepTest 151, Section 2, Question 3
Legislator: A foreign company is attempting to buy(86 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- AThe argument draws(13 more words not shown)
- BThe argument takes(16 more words not shown)
- CThe argument defends(12 more words not shown)
- DThe argument presents(22 more words not shown)
- EThe argument concludes(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why would selling this one company make our iron supply unreliable?
At first, I'd wonder whether there is something wrong with this particular buyer. But the legislator develops a different concern: allowing this purchase will lead to more foreign purchases, then foreign control, then loss of a reliable domestic supply. If those really are the consequences, we would have a reason to take the proposal seriously. The question is whether they will actually follow.
What we’re looking for
Another concern catches my attention: dependable and domestic aren't the same thing. Could manufacturers obtain a dependable supply from abroad? Imagine a neighboring supplier that consistently delivers what it promises. Its location outside the country wouldn't automatically make it unreliable. So my initial prediction for the flaw is that the argument hasn't established why the dependable supply must be domestic.
Working the answers
- A
A weak argument isn't automatically a circular argument. To repeat the conclusion as a premise, the legislator would effectively need to say, 'We should prohibit the sale because we should prohibit the sale.' Instead, the legislator gives reasons about foreign purchases and the future supply of ore. We can doubt those reasons without pretending they simply restate the recommendation. Even the statements about a dependable supply and a domestic supply aren't identical.
- B
The legislator doesn't take a claim about iron mining and assume it is true of every industry. The argument considers what control of iron mining could mean for manufacturers that need iron. That connection between a supplier and its customers isn't a generalization that all industries have the same characteristics.
- C
There is no appeal to widespread acceptance. The legislator doesn't say domestic control is good just because most people approve of it or because it is the usual practice. The stated defense concerns a dependable supply and predicted consequences.
- DCorrect
This focuses on the chain rather than my initial domestic-versus-dependable objection. Even if allowing this purchase left no grounds to block later purchases, why must foreign companies then buy most of the mines? They might have no interest in doing so. And foreign ownership doesn't by itself establish that supplies to manufacturers will become unreliable. The legislator presents these possible developments as the inevitable result of approving this sale, without ruling out a different course of events.
- E
The alleged problem isn't that an effect would have to happen before its cause. The sale could happen before further purchases, and further purchases could happen before a change in supply. The sequence is possible in that order; the argument hasn't established that it must happen. That is D's criticism, not E's timing criticism.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.