LSAT 88, Logical Reasoning II, Q18, LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Economist: Machinery firms in this country argue that in order…

QUESTION TYPE: Most Strongly Supported

FACTS:

1. Machinery firms say their protection from foreign competition needs to be extended for more years in order to grow big and successfully compete with foreign rivals.
2. But these firms have received protection for the last ten year, which should’ve been sufficient for the to grow big and compete with foreign rivals.

ANALYSIS: If we take the Economist’s reasoning as true then that means these firms had the capability to grow big and successfully compete in the past ten years, but failed to do so. The firms want to extend protection, and the Economist tone pits him against the firms’ opinions. We can infer his belief to be:

“If protection in the past 10 years isn’t sufficient to help firms to grow and successfully compete in past ten years ? further protection won’t enable growth and successful competition”

___________

1. How common/often protection helps firms to grow big isn’t mentioned in the stimulus. We’re only concerned with if protection could let this country’s firms grow.
2. We don’t know this and there’s nothing in the stimulus to suggest this. Also, “any” in this answer choice makes it overly broad.
3. This is too extreme.
4. “Going out of business” isn’t equivalent with “ability to compete successfully. The stimulus also gives nothing to suggest that “most” of the firms would go out of business.
5. CORRECT. This matches our prephrase and says that if the previous protection wasn’t sufficient, then more protection wouldn’t allow these firms to grow either.

Recap: The question begins with “Economist: Machinery firms in this country argue that in order”. It is a Most Strongly Supported question. Learn more about LSAT MSS questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.

---