Logical Reasoning

PT107 · S3 · Q16 Allowing more steel imports would

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

Allowing more steel imports would depress domestic steel prices and harm domestic steel manufacturers.

Conclusion

The government will not lift restrictions on steel imports.

Evidence

Premise 1 (causal/conditional): Allowing more steel imports would depress domestic steel prices and harm domestic steel manufacturers.

Premise 2 (rule about the actor): The present government will not do anything that would harm the domestic steel industry.

Pattern

Doing X would cause Y (harm to a protected interest). The actor won't do anything causing Y. Therefore the actor won't do X. The reasoning is valid.

Goal

Find an answer with the same structure: action would cause harm to a protected interest, the actor avoids causing such harm, so the actor won't take that action.

16.

The pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following?

  1. Building construction increases only when

    Bad Match

    This is a positive prediction (construction will increase) based on a necessary condition (confidence) being met. The original is a negative prediction (won't lift restrictions) based on an actor's rule about avoiding harm. Different structure entirely.

    2% picked this

  2. Since workers are already guaranteed

    Bad Match

    This argues against a regulation by saying it's already covered by existing law — a redundancy argument. The steel argument doesn't use redundancy reasoning at all; it's about an actor avoiding harm. Wrong structure.

    3% picked this

  3. In countries that have deregulated

    Bad Match

    This is a generalization-from-pattern argument: deregulation hurt airlines, other transportation industries are weaker, so deregulating them will also cause bankruptcies. That's reasoning by analogy across industries — not the steel argument's "actor's rule + harm" structure.

    2% picked this

  4. The chief executive officer of

    Bad Match

    This concludes that an individual won't do something because the cost to him personally (a tax) would go up. The steel argument is about the actor avoiding harm to a protected industry, not avoiding harm to the actor himself. The connection is also weaker — the CEO might still accept stock despite the tax.

    1% picked this

  5. Correct

    The installation of bright floodlights

    Why this is right

    This matches the steel argument's structure exactly. (1) Floodlights would render the telescope useless (action causes harm). (2) The astronomy department won't support any proposal that renders the telescope useless (actor's rule against causing this harm). (3) Therefore the department won't support installing floodlights (specific action avoided). Same three-step pattern.

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

    91% 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