LR Question 4 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Economist: Our country needs as much capital as possible…
QUESTION TYPE: Weaken
CONCLUSION: We should pass laws that make it more difficult for overseas investors to remove their capital.
REASONING: Our country needs as much capital as possible from overseas investors, and can’t afford any reduction in the capital they have already invested.
ANALYSIS: Here, the question has assumed that making it difficult for overseas investors to remove their capital will maintain or increase the amount of capital our country has. However, maybe investors don’t like being unable to remove their capital! If that’s true, then they will be less likely to invest further capital in our country. Because we need as much capital as possible, we should be incentivizing investing, not causing problems for people who invest. The likely answer is one that takes advantage of this problem in the reasoning.
___________
- Diversifying our investments sounds good, but the conclusion of the stimulus isn’t about our investments – it’s about investments in us!
- CORRECT. This weakens the conclusion by showing the unintended consequences. The proposed action would make investors less likely to invest their capital in us and ultimately might reduce our capital!
- This doesn’t weaken the argument. It only tells us about a correlation between prosperity and capital investments, but we already know that our country needs as much capital as we can get.
- You may have picked this thinking that it undermines the conclusion. If so, you are on the right track but took a wrong turn. The author’s goal isn’t to entirely prevent removal of capital. They want to increase the available capital by making it harder to remove. The correct answer shows that this isn’t the likely outcome.
- The author never claimed it was easy to remove invested capital, or that no laws already existed to make it harder. They want to make it comparatively more difficult than it currently is.
Recap: The question begins with “Economist: Our country needs as much capital as possible”. It is a Weaken question. Learn more about LSAT Weaken questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.
More Resources for Weaken Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Weaken questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers weaken questions.
Hi,
I understand your explanation of B, however it seems to me that this part
“… have already invested.”
Is just way too explicit in the use of the past tense to ignore, and disqualifies B since it hinges upon future investment. In an explicit reading of that part of the passage, sustaining of the economy is based about invested capital that has ALREADY occurred, meaning that past invested capital must stay.
The most appropriate way of writing that question, that still would have kept B as the best answer, and D as insufficient (for all the reasons you stated) was
“…can’t afford any reduction in capital investment. ”
That would satisfy past, present and future.
It’s honestly frustrating when we are tasked with following the exact meanings of words/phrases, and then in this case an explicit part that literally conditions the past-tense just thrown away as unimportant.
I understand your frustration about the explicit use of “have already invested” and how this might seem to focus solely on past investments. However, this doesn’t disqualify B and it still best weakens the argument.
While the argument specifically acknowledges the importance of retaining already invested capital, it also hinges on sustaining the overall flow of overseas investment (the first sentence). Hence, B highlights the unintended consequence that such laws could reduce future investments, undermining the economist’s goal of sustaining the economy through maximizing overseas investment.
While you’re right that the stimulus focuses on retaining past investments, the first sentence says that they need as much capital as possible. This includes new investments and maintaining the flow and confidence of future investments. So, yes, B does not target the main focus of the argument, which is how to retain investments already made. But that’s exactly the issue of the argument, and the contradiction that B highlights. The economist says that the overall goal is to get as much capital as possible, yet wants to hone in on the issue by implementing restrictive laws that might discourage future investments – which defeats the overall goal of maximizing capital.
Hopefully that helps, let me know if you’d like to discuss further!
Context: I picked D and I’m trying to understand why B is a better answer.
This was a question where I struggled between going with what is literally said in the passage and what would make most sense from a “common sense” perspective.
I think D is more supported by what is said in the passage because one of the premises is that “we cannot afford any reduction in the amount of capital that overseas investors have invested here”. If we cannot afford any reduction, then it’s sufficient to show that a solution does not “entirely prevent” the removal of investment because that means some (even if a small) amount has been removed.
On the other hand, B is more supported from a “common sense” perspective because it is common sense that investors do not like it when their investments are frozen.
My impression is that LSAT questions usually want you to respond from a “literally stated” perspective instead of a common sense perspective. Any thoughts on this? (Thanks for the explanations so far by the way, they have been super helpful)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! The struggle between sticking to the literal wording and how much you can assume is a common one. Hopefully this helps to clarify.
There are two key problems with D:
1. When evaluating a Weaken question, you want to take the answer choice at its weakest interpretation and ask if still meaningfully undermines the argument. In this case, D simply says the laws have not “entirely prevented” the removal of capital. Imagine that only one investor still removed their capital – would that substantially impact the bigger picture? Probably not.
2. While you’re right that the stimulus says the country cannot afford to lose ANY investment, D fails to challenge the economist’s overall core reasoning. Remember that the stimulus starts off by saying that they need as much capital as possible. So the goal here is to overall maximize overseas capital – retaining current investors is just one mechanism of doing so. The argument assumes that making it harder to remove capital will lead to more capital staying in the country overall, which will sustain the economy. D doesn’t question this assumption, it just merely points out that some capital might still leave, which isn’t enough to undermine the argument’s logic.
So take these two problems with D together. What if “have not entirely prevented” means 1 investor left, and also imagine that many others still increased their investments or many new investors came in? Then D doesn’t undermine the argument at all. Because it doesn’t actually attack the core reasoning.
B, however, directly attacks this line of reasoning by showing an unintended (or at least unaccounted for) consequence of such laws: they would discourage overseas investors from investing new capital altogether. If the laws reduce future investment, it undermines the argument’s premise that these laws will sustain the economy by maximizing overseas capital.
LSAT questions do want you to stick closely to the text, but they also want you to identify logical flaws and underlying assumptions. B is not just “common sense”, it exposes a flaw in the economist’s reasoning by showing that their solution could backfire. It’s supported directly by the text (rather than just “common sense”) because the economist’s goal is to maximize capital, and B demonstrates that their proposal would likely achieve the opposite. In contrast, D doesn’t actually directly engage with the argument’s reasoning about how the proposed laws would achieve the desired result.
Hope that helps!