Logical Reasoning

PT102 · S2 · Q24 Trade official: Country X deserves

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Trade official: Country X deserves economic retribution for its protectionism.

Conclusion (should = opinion)

We should still sell to Country X the agricultural equipment it ordered.

Evidence

Yes, they deserve economic retribution for their protectionism, but there is high demand in our country for agricultural imports from X.

Evaluate

The author seems to be worried that if we don't go ahead and sell to X the agricultural equipment it ordered from us, then our country won't be able to import as much agricultural stuff from country X.

So the author is assuming some Causal Difference-Maker type idea: our country will be able to receive more agricultural imports from X if we sell them the agricultural equipment they ordered, than if we don't sell it to them.

The author is also assuming some Weighing Tradeoffs type idea, like,

Goal

Let's look for an answer connecting "selling the equipment to X" to .

Or look for an answer that is weighing the tradeoffs, saying .

24.

The argument depends on assuming which one of the following principles?

Agricultural components of international trade
Irrelevant Comparison
The author isn't Weighing Tradeoffs between agricultural components of trade and nonagricultural commodities. She doesn't need to believe that agricultural components are more important than nonagricultural commodities. She only needs to assume that the high demand in our country for agricultural commodities from Country X is important enough that it could override our desire to punish Country X for its protectionism.
2% picked this
The ability to keep popular
Opposite
This speaks to the Weighing Tradeoffs part of the author's calculus, but it's written in the opposite direction. In choosing to sell the agricultural equipment to Country X, the author is thinking that "the ability keep popular products available domestically (the ability to satisfy the high demand for agricultural products from X) is more important than dealing with protectionism." Protectionism is sort of the opposite of free trade. With free trade, producers from our country can enter international markets in other countries (and vice versa). But if those other countries are protectionist, then they'll slap steep tariffs on our goods or put up other barriers of entry that lock us out of that market. So "being able to enter international markets" is probably meant as a logical opposite for "being protectionist". But we don't have to think that hard if we see that this answer is saying "satisfying the high demand to keep popular Country X agricultural products in supply" is less important. After all, this high demand seems to be our author's main motivating concern.
2% picked this
We should never jeopardize the
Too Strong: never
This argument is only about Country X. The author hasn't committed herself to the crazy extreme idea that we should never ever jeopardize the interests of our people to punish a protectionist country. The author is just assuming that, "In this case, we shouldn't jeopardize the interests our people have in X's agricultural imports in order to punish a protectionist country".
31% picked this
In most cases, punishing a
Too Strong: most
This argument is only about Country X. The author hasn't committed herself to the specific idea that in more than 50% of cases, we would take the opposite course of action. The author is assuming that, "In this case, punishing a protectionist country has lower priority than the interests of our people". We don't know whether the author thinks that usually punishing the protectionist has a lower / equal / higher priority.
2% picked this
Correct
We should balance the justice
Why this is right
This speaks to the Weighing Tradeoffs part of the argument. The just action would be to refuse to sell agricultural equipment to X, since X is being obnoxiously protectionist and deserves retribution. But undertaking that action would have consequences for our country's interests (presumably, we wouldn't be able to satisfy the high demand for agricultural imports from X). This answer is the softer version of (C). (C) was saying that we will never jeopardize our country's interests to punish a protectionist country. But maybe this author would be happy to punish X if there were only low / moderate demand for their agricultural products. That would still jeopardize our country's interests, but since our country's interests wouldn't be particularly strong, it might be a tolerable price to pay for getting to punish X's protectionism. (E) meanwhile is not making it sound like one thing always wins over the other. It's just saying that both things should be balanced against each other. Clearly, our author believes this, because she's doing just that. X deserves punishment. However, it's crucial we recognize overriding considerations. That indicates that the justice of punishing X is being balanced with some other consideration. The argument goes on to say that this overriding consideration is our country's interest in getting agricultural imports back from X. The author is implying that by giving X the agricultural equipment, we'll be in a better position in regards to X's agricultural exports.
Skill tested: Principle-Conform · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
64% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free