QUESTION TEXT: Tariffs on particular products tend to protect the…
QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption
CONCLUSION: Politicians will win votes if they oppose tariffs.
REASONING: Most people oppose tariffs. Tariffs help a small number and hurt the general population.
ANALYSIS: This question commits the flaw of focussing only on one factor and forgetting the rest. People vote based on multiple issues (if they even vote). Sure, maybe 70% of people oppose tariffs. But do they strongly oppose tariffs?
The relevant question is whether people oppose tariffs enough to change their vote based on that fact. The author is assuming that because people care at all, they indeed care that much.
- CORRECT. If this isn’t true, then tariffs might win votes despite opposition. Note that the word “significantly” increases the strength of this answer. “More” could be as little as 0.0001%, but “significantly more” has to be at least 40% or so.
Negation: Supporters of tariffs are significantly more likely to vote for a politicians for this reason. Opponents of tariffs are significantly less likely to base their vote on tariffs.
- Negating an “all” statement involves just making it very slightly false. Negating this has no impact.
Negation: Politicians vote based on reelection 99.9999% of the time. But once, someone voted for something that had a mild negative impact on their electability.
- This answer talks about what politicians should do. But the argument’s conclusion is factual; it talks about election odds. The LSAT makes a strict separation between morality and fact.
- Same as C. This talks about “should”, when the conclusion is factual. Also, tariffs have two features: they help a small number, and hurt everyone else. If the policy doesn’t hurt others then helping a small number may not be bad.
- This isn’t necessary. Someone could oppose tariffs without knowing whether the tariff hurts them specifically. Many people oppose tariffs as a matter of principle.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly