Logical Reasoning

PT111 · S4 · Q17 Politician: All nations that place

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

Politician: All nations that place a high tax on income produce thereby a negative incentive for technological innovation, and all nations in which technological innovation is hampered inevitably fall behind in the international arms race.

Conclusion (So)

If a nation wants to maintain its value system and way of life, it must not allow its highest tax bracket to exceed 30% of its income.

Evidence

If a nation places a high tax on income, it produces a negative incentive for technological innovation.

If technological innovation is hampered, then a nation falls behind in the international arms race.

If a nation winds up in a strategically disadvantaged position, then it loses its voice in world affairs.

Evaluate

This argument offers us three conditional premises (and a conditional conclusion). Whenever we get multiple conditional facts, we ask ourselves whether they chain together / whether they have overlapping ideas.

The author seems to intend for them to chain together, because each new rule picks up basically where the last one left off. And the conclusion seems to be acting like a restatement of the connection between the first and last part of the chain, only in contrapositive form.

The contrapositive of the conclusion is that, .

Here is the the chain of thinking the author is trying to put together.

1. top tax bracket exceeds 30% 2. so, there is a high tax on income 3. so, there's a negative incentive for tech innovation 4. so, technological innovation is hampered 5. so, the nation falls behind in the int'l arms race 6. so, they wind up in a strategically disadvantageous position 7. so, they lose their voice in world affairs 8., so, they fail to maintain their value system and way of life.

Three of those links are established by the premises: - 2 leads to 3 - 4 leads to 5 - 6 leads to 7

But the author has gaps when it comes to whether - 1 leads to 2 - 3 leads to 4 - 5 leads to 6 - 7 leads to 8

Goal

Since there are going to be four weaken answers, and the author has four questionable links in her conditional chain, we may see one weakening answer per link. But ultimately we should stay flexible and get rid of the four that weaken.

17.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the politician's argument EXCEPT:

The top level of taxation
Weakens
This pushes back against the link from 1 to 2. It's suggesting that simply exceeding 30% for the top bracket does not yet trigger the "high tax" threshold that leads to a negative incentive for technological innovation. 1. top tax bracket exceeds 30% 2. so, there is a high tax on income 3. so, there's a negative incentive for tech innovation
8% picked this
Making a great deal of
Weakens
This pushes back at the dubious move from 3 to 4. The author is assuming that "if there's a negative financial incentive for tech innovation, the technological innovation will be hampered. 1. top tax bracket exceeds 30% 2. so, there is a high tax on income 3. so, there's a negative incentive for tech innovation 4. so, technological innovation is hampered This answer is saying that money isn't a significant driving force behind innovation, so when a high tax reduces the financial incentive for tech innovation, that won't necessarily hamper technological innovation.
10% picked this
Falling behind in the international
Weakens
This pushes back against the move from 5 to 6. 1. top tax bracket exceeds 30% 2. so, there is a high tax on income 3. so, there's a negative incentive for tech innovation 4. so, technological innovation is hampered 5. so, the nation falls behind in the int'l arms race 6. so, they wind up in a strategically disadvantageous position The author was assuming that "if a nation falls behind in the international arms race, then it winds up in a strategically disadvantageous position", but this answer says there are exceptions to that. 5 does not necessarily imply 6.
4% picked this
Those nations that lose influence
Weakens
This pushes back against the move from 7 to 8. 1. top tax bracket exceeds 30% 2. so, there is a high tax on income 3. so, there's a negative incentive for tech innovation 4. so, technological innovation is hampered 5. so, the nation falls behind in the int'l arms race 6. so, they wind up in a strategically disadvantageous position 7. so, they lose their voice in world affairs 8., so, they fail to maintain their value system and way of life. The author was assuming that "if a nation loses its voice in world affairs, then it will fail to maintain its value system and way of life". This answer says that 7 does not necessarily imply 8.
7% picked this
Correct
Allowing one’s country to lose
Why this is right
Our spidey sense might have told us that this is the irrelevant answer, since it targets wording that shows up in an irrelevant "filler" part of the paragraph. The author doesn't care whether a nation winds up in a strategically disadvantageous position through historical accident or through the foolishness of leadership. She says that, "whether it's this way or that way, you get the same result: you lose your voice in world affairs". So since the author didn't care whether it was foolishness or a historical accident, we can't possibly weaken her by telling her it was one rather than the other.
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
72% 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