Reading Comprehension

PT106 · S4 · P3 · Q16 Steady-State vs. Neoclassical Economics

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension 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

Recently, a new school of economics called steady-state economics has seriously challenged neoclassical economics, the reigning school in Western economic decision making.

Topic

The debate between steady-state economics and neoclassical economics regarding economic growth and environmental limits.

Framework

Present Debate

Main Point

The passage presents a debate: Neoclassical economists see no environmental limits to economic growth, while steady-state economists argue that unlimited growth is unsustainable and propose alternatives such as conservation to keep the economy in balance with nature. *The "Most Valuable Sentence" appears at the beginning of paragraph 2: *

P1: Introduction to the Competing Economic Models

This paragraph introduces the two schools: neoclassical economics, which dominates Western economic thinking and claims there are no limits to growth, and steady-state economics, which challenges that idea by raising concerns about non-economic constraints (like the environment).

P2: Explaining the Debate—Nature’s Limits vs. Unlimited Growth

Here, the author details the steady-state view that the economy depends on natural resources, which are limited and can't support endless growth. Steady-state economists argue for an optimal size for the economy and warn that exceeding it would cause more harm than good. In contrast, neoclassical economists believe resources can be replaced and growth can continue indefinitely.

P3: The Case for Steady-State—Alternatives to Growth

This paragraph discusses how some steady-state economists believe the Western world has already grown past optimal levels. They propose that checking economic growth doesn't mean stagnation—it's possible to satisfy human needs through better resource management (like conservation and recycling), rather than just by expanding the economy.

16.

According to the passage, steady-state economists believe that unlimited economic growth is dangerous because it

  1. may deplete natural resources faster

    Out of Scope: discovering replacements

    Nothing in our Support Window talks about discovering replacement resources. "exceeding nature's capacity to regenerate raw material and absorb waste would increase the cost to the environment at a faster rate than the benefit to producers/consumers, generating cycles that impoverish rather than enrich".

    11% picked this

  2. may convert natural resources into

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: converting to products too fast Nothing in our Support Window talks about a danger of converting resources into products too quickly, or about "efficient resource use". "exceeding nature's capacity to regenerate raw material and absorb waste would increase the cost to the environment at a faster rate than the benefit to producers/consumers, generating cycles that impoverish rather than enrich".

    2% picked this

  3. may proliferate goods and services

    Out of Scope: generating new markets

    Nothing in our Support Window talks about the speed at which we can generate new markets for goods and services. "exceeding nature's capacity to regenerate raw material and absorb waste would increase the cost to the environment at a faster rate than the benefit to producers/consumers, generating cycles that impoverish rather than enrich".

    1% picked this

  4. may create income inequities faster

    Out of Scope: income inequities

    Nothing in our Support Window talks about creating income inequities. "exceeding nature's capacity to regenerate raw material and absorb waste would increase the cost to the environment at a faster rate than the benefit to producers/consumers, generating cycles that impoverish rather than enrich".

    1% picked this

  5. Correct

    may increase the cost to

    Why this is right

    This matches our Support Window: "exceeding nature's capacity to regenerate raw material and absorb waste would increase the cost to the environment at a faster rate than the benefit to producers/consumers, generating cycles that impoverish rather than enrich".

    Skill tested: Locate Detail · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    85% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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