Logical Reasoning

PT104 · S1 · Q21 In order to pressure the government

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

In order to pressure the government of Country S to become less repressive, some legislators in Country R want to ban all exports from R to S. Companies in R that manufacture telecommunication equipment such as telephones and fax machines have argued that exports of their products should be exempted from the ban, on the grounds that it is impossible for a country to remain repressive when telecommunication equipment is widely available to the population of that country.

Conclusion (should = opinion)

Exports of phones and fax machines should be exempted from the ban. Rephrase: We should be allowed to continue exporting phones and fax machines to country S.

Evidence

We want to pressure country S to become less repressive. And it's impossible for a country to remain repressive when telecommunication equipment is widely available to that country's population.

Evaluate

So the manufacturers of phones and fax machines are thinking that even though we're blocking most exports from S, because we're trying to get them to be more open / less repressive, we should still send S phones and fax machines.

This plan is assuming that by sending them phones and fax machines, the population of that country will be better able to communicate and thus will be irrepressible.

Since this is a real-world type plan, it's probably unlikely that we're being tested on a Linking idea and more likely the correct answer will Defend against a potential objection.

Given that ... it's impossible for a country to remain repressive once telecom equipment is widely available to its people,

How can we argue that ... we should not export phones and fax machines to S?

If the exported phones and fax machines made it so that telecom equipment was widely available, then that would break S's repressive grip of its people (which is desired). So if we're going to fight this plan, we need to argue that we would ship out these phones / fax machines, but it wouldn't ever become the case that the telecom equipment would be widely available to S's population.

Maybe the leaders of S wouldn't distribute the phones and fax machines; they would just sell them to some other country put more money into the corrupt government's coffers.

Goal

Look for an answer that, if negated, gives us a way to argue that we should not export phones and fax machines to country S, or an answer that seems to reflect something the manufacturers are clearly thinking as they sell us on this plan of theirs.

21.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument given by the manufacturers depends?

The government of S has
Out of Scope: recently increased
The argument never discusses an upper limit on how much telecom equipment can be imported into S. The author doesn't need to assume they've recently lifted that limit. Maybe there is no limit at all. Maybe the limit is already extraordinarily high. This plan doesn't necessitate S having recently changed its allowable limit of telecom imports. We could fix this answer by saying, "The government would allow enough telecom equipment to be imported into the country that telecom equipment could, as a result, become widely available to the population of that country".
2% picked this
Correct
The telecommunication equipment that would
Why this is right
This has the lovable quality of ruling-out with a "not / no", which is so common among correct answers on Necessary Assumption. When we see these ruled-out ideas, we should use the Negation test. If we remove the "not / no", does this answer turn into an objection? The telecom equip imported into S would be available solely to top government officials. Heck yeah that's an objection. The manufacturer is suggesting that by exporting phones and faxes, we can get to where telecom equipment is widely available to the population of S, at which point repression is impossible. But when we negate this answer, it's saying, "Yo, manufacturers -- what if the leaders of S don't allow these exports to be disseminated widely among the population. If the leaders keep all the phones and faxes exclusively to themselves, then we've basically just given them a gift when we're supposed to be isolating them and depriving them of things." Another way to think about this answer is that the manufacturers were clearly thinking that by exporting phones and faxes, the result would be that telecom equipment is widely available to the people of S, and in order for that to be true, it would have to be the case that the government doesn't keep all that imported telecom equipment exclusively for itself.
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
71% picked this
A majority of the members
Trap
Weakens, if anything Too Strong: a majority The word/concept of "most" is wrong on Necessary Assumption, 98% of the time we see it, since the difference between most and not-most is a usually-meaningless move from at least 51% to at most 49%. Furthermore, if we negate this answer, it would strengthen, which is not how a correct answer would behave. The negation says that a majority of legislators do favor exempting telecom equipment, so a majority of legislators agree with the conclusion. The negation of the correct answer should weaken, not strengthen.
3% picked this
Of all exports that could
Too Strong: of all / the most
We don't have any language to support this superlative claim that telecom equipment would be the #1 most effective export to combat repression. The manufacturers haven't said anything like, "only our products should be exempted". They might believe that other products are also worthy (or even more worthy) of exemption.
21% picked this
Without pressure from Country R,
Too Strong: indefinitely
This answer has nothing to do with exporting phones and fax machines, so it instantly feels like it's not focused on the conclusion. We can't say the manufacturers are assuming that the only possible way that the government of S will stop repressing its citizens is if Country R applies pressure.
3% 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