Editorial: Given the law of supply

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: any4% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that any country that does not have a pure free market economy has

   The author didn't have to assume that all economies are either pure free market or highly controlled. She just said that "if a highly controlled country isn't pursuing pure free market ... ". She actually says "other types of economies" at one point, indicating she recognizes the existence of several types.

   4%
2. B

   Out of Scope: distributing utility2% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that the way in which utility is distributed is less important than the

   Nothing in the argument is about how to distribute utility. It's just about which type of economy is assured or most likely to bring about max total utility.

   2%
3. C

   Bad Premise/Conclusion Match28% picked this

   fails to consider that the way most likely to achieve a particular end may not be the only

   The author fails to consider that: the only assured way to achieve X may not be the most likely way to achieve X This says that: the most likely way to achieve X may not be the only way

   28%
4. D

   Correct65% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that trying to bring about a condition that will ensure the achievement of an end must always be the way

   Why this is right

   Since this assumption is conditional strength, we can look at how it would be diagrammed and check to see whether it matches the conditional flow of the argument: This is saying: "if it's the condition that will ensure X, then it's the most likely way to achieve X." The author identified a pure free market economy as the only condition that will ensure X, and in the conclusion the author is acting like "pursuing pure free market" is the most likely way to achieve X.

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

   65%
5. E

   No Impact2% picked this

   ignores the possibility that a pure free market economy will have serious drawbacks that outweigh the benefits

   The conclusion isn't saying that we should pursue a pure free market economy. That sort of normative conclusion would be vulnerable to objections like this: "just because it would be good, in terms of maximum total utility, we shouldn't necessarily try to do a pure free market, because there might be drawbacks that outweigh the advantage". The conclusion is only saying, "If you're not pursuing X, you're not pursuing the most likely route to Y." I could say "If you're not attending Harvard Law, then you're not taking the law school most likely to help you become President", but that doesn't mean I'm saying you should go to Harvard.

   2%