QUESTION TEXT: Columnist: Some people argue that the…
QUESTION TYPE: Must be False
- The government would not need to know how to manage banks in order to take over banks.
- The government would only have to appoint senior bank managers.
- Politicians appoint senior military officials despite having no military experience.
ANALYSIS: This question isn’t quite an argument, but it practically is. The columnist is making an analogy between banks and the military.
There’s an unstated assumption: the military works just fine. The “yet” implies that the columnist thinks the military runs fine (this is an assumption almost everyone agrees with). And the military is at least as complex as banks.
So the columnist is strongly implying that the government could successfully manage a bank by appointing senior banking officials.
- The columnist doesn’t make this comparison. Both banking and the military require knowledge, but who knows which requires more? It’s hardly even a sensible question.
- This is probably true, if the columnist is talking sensibly. This question is asking what is false.
- The columnist wasn’t suggesting politicians manage banks. The columnist was suggesting politicians appoint bank managers, much like politicians appoint generals.
- CORRECT. This must be false. The columnist made an analogy between banks and the military. The military is at least as complex as banks. Politicians appoint military officials, and it works fine. So why not banks?
- The columnist is only talking about the takeover of failing financial institutions. We have no idea what they think of taking over financially sound banks.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly