Logical Reasoning

PT120 · S4 · Q20 Investment banker: Democracies require free-market

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

Investment banker: Democracies require free-market capitalist economies, because a more controlled economy is incompatible with complete democracy.

Conclusion (Thus)

People who bemoan the seemingly anticapitalistic measures certain governments are currently taking are being hasty.

Evidence

History shows that repressive measures against certain capitalistic developments are required during the transition from a totalitarian regime to a democracy.

Evaluate

This is a lot to process. The conclusion is a Rebuttal, so we might want to first hear the position with whom the author is fighting:

People: Oh, no. Certain governments are currently taking anticapitalistic measures. That sucks! Democracies need free-market capitalist economies.

Author: Hey, easy there. You're being too hasty with this concern. Give it time and you'll see it's alright. History shows that when you're transitioning from a totalitarian regime to a democracy, you have to take repressive measures against some capitalistic developments.

Do we hear anything the author is assuming? If not, can we think of how we would argue with her? How could we defend the concern of the original people?

We could say,

Or we could say,

Goal

Necessary Assumptions provide missing links / missing ideas, or they rule out a potential objection. Since we only came up with objections, let's look for an answer ruling one of those out:

- the capitalistic measures being repressed by certain governments are among the group of certain capitalistic developments that you need to repress when transitioning.

- the governments doing the anticapitalistic stuff are transitioning from totalitarianism to democracy.

20.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the investment banker's argument?

  1. No current government has reached

    Too Strong: no one's maxed out

    This is plausible in a real world sense, because nobody's perfect. But ... does it hurt this argument if we say, "Yo, author -- there is at least one government that has reached the most complete state of democracy any government can reach." No, it doesn't hurt the author's argument if some government is maximally democratic. It would only hurt the author's argument if one of these certain governments that are doing the anticapitalistic measures were maximally democratic. The author is portraying the anticapitalistic governments as "on the road" to democracy, so she is assuming that none of those governments have reached as complete a state of democracy as is possible. But she doesn't need to assume that's true about all governments.

    3% picked this

  2. The more democratic a country

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: the more x, the less y Out of Scope: regulation The author never brought up regulation at all, so she certainly hasn't committed to the incredibly extreme Volume Dial idea that "more democratic = less regulated".

    8% picked this

  3. The need for economic stability

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: stability Unknown Comparison: more probable The author never brings up a need for "stability", so that's enough for us to say the author didn't need to believe this. She also was never addressing which types of democracies are more or less probable. So overall, we couldn't derive anything like this answer from the few things we've heard her say.

    8% picked this

  4. A free-market economy is incompatible

    Illegal Negation

    We know that non-free markets are incompatible with democracy: not a free market economy → not democracy This answer is just giving us an illegal negation of that idea: a free market economy → not (non-democracy) If we say "being drunk is incompatible with being on jury duty", that doesn't mean we're assuming that "being sober is incompatible with not being on jury duty".

    13% picked this

  5. Correct

    The nations whose anticapitalistic measures

    Why this is right

    This is a fancy of way of saying that our author is assuming that these certain governments who are currently taking anticapitalistic measures are "on the way to democracy". The author is saying, "Hey, people who bemoan -- give this some time. These guys are on their way from totalitarianism to democracy, and some repressive anticapitalistic measures are needed on that road." But the author is just assuming that these countries are in that predicament. It was never established that they are. If we negate this, we would get this objection: "Hey, author -- I know that anticapitalistic measures are needed when you're transitioning from totalitarian to democracy. But these nations doing anticapitalist things were not recently totalitarian. Hence, they are not transitioning from totalitarian to democracy. Hence, your premise is totally irrelevant to the situation, and thus you don't have an evidentiary leg to stand on any more!"

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

    68% 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