Logical Reasoning

PT115 · S4 · Q23 Editorial: Given the law of supply

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

Editorial: Given the law of supply and demand, maximum total utility is assured only in a pure free market economy, although other types of economies might be able to achieve it.

Conclusion

A country with a controlled economy that isn't trying to bring about a pure free market economy is not doing what is most likely to bring about maximum total utility.

Evidence

Only pure free market economy assures maximum total utility.

Evaluate

This is a tricky flaw to pin down. Both the Premise and the Conclusion are saying or implying something about , so it's useful to consider them in parallel so that we can see the gap.

Premise:

not doing free market → not assured max utility

Conclusion:

not doing free market → not doing most likely way to get max utility

The author is apparently assuming .

That sounds pretty reasonable, but we could probably think of cases where the most assured way isn't the most likely way.

There's 5 seconds left in the basketball game. Your team is down by 1. Let's say . But that doesn't mean that trying to run down the court and dunk the ball is the most likely way to make the winning basket. It's too hard to get all the way to the other hoop and dunk it in 5 seconds with the other team's whole defense trying to stop you.

Goal

Look for an answer calling out the potential difference between "the only assured way of getting X" and "the most likely way to get X"

23.

The editorial's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

  1. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Too Strong: any

    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% picked this

  2. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Out of Scope: distributing utility

    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% picked this

  3. fails to consider that the

    Bad Premise/Conclusion Match

    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% picked this

  4. Correct

    presumes, without providing justification, that

    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% picked this

  5. ignores the possibility that a

    No Impact

    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% 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