Logical Reasoning

PT105 · S1 · Q8 Economist: In the interaction between

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

Start practicing free

Economist: In the interaction between producers and consumers, the only obligation that all parties have is to act in the best interests of their own side.

Conclusion

Consumers are always obligated to report product defects they discover, while producers are never obligated to reveal them.

Evidence

When it comes to both producers and consumers, the only obligation either has is to act in the best interests of their side.

The distribution of information about product defects is in the best interests of the consumer.

Evaluate

The author's conclusion is about whether people do or don't have an obligation, and the evidence provides the legal standard by which we'll judge someone's obligations: acting in the best interests of their own side

Since the author says consumers are obliged to report defects, he's assuming that it's in their best interest to report defects, and his other premise says that .

So there's a tiny missing link there that "if consumers report product defects, it makes it more likely that information about defects will be distributed.

But since the author says that producers are not obliged to report defects, he must be assuming that it's not in their best interest (too) to report defects.

There is no premise at all about what is / isn't in the producers' best interests. We can tell that's a huge omission from the argument. The author is Assuming a Difference (it's in the best interest of consumers but not of producers).

Goal

Look for an answer saying, . Or look for an answer that, when negated, would weaken the conclusion.

8.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the economist's argument?

  1. Correct

    It is never in the

    Why this is right

    This is what we were looking for. It just feels strong because of the "never", since we're always wary of accusing an author of Too Strong an assumption on Necessary Assumption. But it's not automatically wrong because it's strongly worded. It just means that we have to check the strength of the conclusion to see whether the author really was thinking in terms as black and white as conditional language. This conclusion says that producers are never obligated to reveal defects. We could defeat this conclusion with one measly counterexample where a producer was obligated to reveal defects because it was in their best interests. If we negated this answer choice, that's precisely what we'd get: at least sometimes, it's in the best interests of producers to reveal a product defect. thus, at least sometimes, producers are obligated to reveal a product defect. That would contradict the conclusion (the correct answer, when negated, doesn't need to contradict the conclusion. It just needs to weaken the argument, but here it would seemingly refute the argument.)

    Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    74% picked this

  2. No one expects producers to

    Out of Scope: expects

    The author is never talking about what people do or don't expect, so we have no way to say that the author is assuming anything about what people expect. If we negated this answer and said, "at least one person expects producers to act in a manner counter to their best interests", it wouldn't weaken, especially since we have no idea what is / isn't in the best interests of producers.

    7% picked this

  3. Any product defect is likely

    Too Strong: any

    The author has not committed herself to an insanely strong notion that 100% of product defects are likely to be discovered. As it pertains to discovering defects, the only thing the author has said is that "when a consumer discovers one, they are always obligated to report it".

    2% picked this

  4. A product defect is more

    Unknown Comparison: more likely

    The author never said anything indicating whether it's more likely that a consumer or a producer would discover a defect.

    5% picked this

  5. The best interests of consumers

    Too Strong: never

    The author has to assume that, when it comes to product defects, the best interests of consumers never coincide with those of producers. But she doesn't have to assume it never happens. Maybe when it comes to environmental regulations, the best interests of consumers and producers converge.

    13% 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