Logical Reasoning

PT126 · S4 · Q10 In some countries, national planners

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

In some countries, national planners have attempted to address the problems resulting from increasing urbanization by reducing migration from rural areas.

Assertion

National leaders could solve the problems resulting from migration from rural to urban areas by trading goods or services produced by their urban populations in order to obtain agricultural products that used to be produced domestically (in rural areas).

Evaluate

This isn't called an argument or reasoning, so we don't need to be looking for a Conclusion and Premise.

The assertion seems to make a few assumptions: - one of the problems (if not the only one) with people migrating from rural to urban is that we're worried that once they leave the rural area, we'll no longer have the agricultural products that used to be made there

- these soon-to-be-missing agricultural products are available on world markets

- our urban places produce enough desirable goods that other countries would want that it would feasible to entice other countries into trading with us

Goal

Let's look for an answer affirming something this plan is assuming, ruling out a potential objection to the plan (alternate plans aren't objections ... it only weakens to argue that this play couldn't do it), or just providing a new fact that makes it seem like this plan could work.

10.

Which one of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the economists' assertion?

  1. Government subsidies to urban manufacturers

    Different Plan: subsidies

    It isn't clear that subsidies had anything to do with the plan the economists are asserting could work, so bringing up subsidies seems pretty irrelevant to supporting their plan.

    7% picked this

  2. All problems that have economic

    Unclear Impact

    Do we know if the migration from rural to urban is a problem that had an economic cause? We don't. For all we know, people are moving from rural to urban areas just because they want to be closer to cultural landmarks like museums, galleries, and Drake concerts. Beyond the fact that this answer isn't necessarily applicable to the situation is the fact that even if it's applicable, it only tells us that the solution must be economic. It isn't providing any specific reason why we think this particular economic plan would work.

    3% picked this

  3. Correct

    A scarcity of agricultural products

    Why this is right

    This just affirms a big assumption. No one ever said that agricultural products were even part of the problem. The economists' plan is certainly assuming it is, so establishing that shortage of agricultural products is a central element of many problems help the plan seem relevant. When LSAT problems deal with Plans, the correct answer typically deals with - whether the plan is feasible - whether the plan would backfire - whether the plan targets a significant source of the problem This is doing the 3rd thing.

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

    62% picked this

  4. Problems associated with migration to

    Weakens, if anything

    This makes it seem like the problem isn't a shortage of agricultural products. It's mainly trade imbalances. So our economists are proposing a plan to address a problem that apparently isn't the main problem. They're coming up with a plan that will help us replace a vacuum of crop production, when the problems associate with migration aren't due to a lack of crops from our agricultural areas (they're due to trade imbalances between countries). We might also think that the author's solution would be less feasible or could even backfire, given that it hinges on relying on trade with other countries and apparently trade imbalances are a problem.

    26% picked this

  5. Free trade policies can exacerbate

    Unclear Impact

    This is worded so weakly that it just admits that it's possible that at least once a free trade policy would exacerbate the problems of urbanization. Is the economists' plan a "free trade policy"? It doesn't sound like it's free trade or tariffed trade. We only know the intent of the government would be to trade urban goods for agricultural goods. We don't know the terms of those trades (would they be free or regulated in some way). If we we assume the economists' plan is free trade, then this weakens somewhat. If we assume it isn't free trade, then it has no impact at all on the conversation.

    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.

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