QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument
CONCLUSION: It’s hard to get rid of our country’s chronic food shortages.
REASONING: Direct food aid would drive our producers out of business, worsening the problem. Long term capital investment could cause inflation that would make food hard to buy.
ANALYSIS: This might be a good argument, but we need more information. The argument hasn’t excluded all other possibilities. It just shows that two possible methods won’t work. The two methods (direct aid and foreign capital) have nothing to do with each other. A lot of the wrong answer choices suggest they do.
The claim about foreign capital shows that one alternative won’t work well.
- The official didn’t say if self-sufficiency definitely should be a goal. They just said that direct aid would hurt the possibility of self-sufficiency. But it could be that self-sufficiency is too hard to set as a goal.
- CORRECT. It is one of two pieces of evidence supporting the claim.
- Not at all: there’s no link between those two things.
- No. The two claims are independent of each, and they support the conclusion that it won’t be easy to solve the food crisis.
- No. The last two sentences are completely separate from each other.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly