PrepTest 151, Section 4, Question 7
Politicians often advocate increased overall economic productivity while(57 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(11 more words not shown)
- Apresumes, without providing(15 more words not shown)
- Bfails to justify(29 more words not shown)
- Cunfairly criticizes politicians(23 more words not shown)
- Dfails to justify(25 more words not shown)
- Efails to address(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Losing a job at one company doesn't necessarily mean staying unemployed.
The argument starts with productivity across the whole economy, then shifts to what happens within one corporation. I'll accept that a corporation trying to become more profitable may cut jobs. But the conclusion returns to the whole economy and says unemployment will rise. What happens at the other employers?
Suppose Coca-Cola lays off workers while another company is hiring. Those workers might find new jobs, perhaps even better-paid ones. That isn't a prediction that every laid-off worker will be fine. It's a possibility the argument needs to address before treating one company's smaller workforce as an increase in unemployment across the economy.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw, I'd focus on that change in scale.
Working the answers
- A
The author identifies a supposed drawback, but doesn't conclude that increased productivity should be abandoned as a goal. Someone could believe a policy has a cost and still favor it overall. A criticizes a recommendation the argument hasn't made.
- BCorrect
This identifies the move from one corporation to the economy as a whole. The evidence concerns a corporation reducing its workforce; the conclusion concerns the number of unemployed workers across the economy. Other employers could absorb the people who lose their jobs, so the first outcome doesn't establish the second. We can accept the corporate job cuts without accepting the predicted rise in overall unemployment.
- C
We don't have a sample of a few politicians being used to prove something about every politician. The opening says politicians often advocate productivity while ignoring drawbacks. The reasoning that follows concerns whether corporate job cuts establish an economy-wide result, not whether a few politicians represent all the others.
- D
The argument doesn't rank productivity above the interests of workers or owners in every situation. In fact, it raises a concern about workers. We shouldn't turn a claim about a policy's alleged effects into an unstated rule about what must always matter most.
- E
We don't need an exhaustive account of every corporate benefit and drawback to evaluate this inference. Even a detailed account of one company's job cuts would leave the same question: what happens elsewhere in the economy? E asks for a much broader corporate assessment without identifying the missing connection between the corporation and the overall unemployment claim.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.