In some countries, national planners

Answer choices

1. A

   Different Plan: subsidies7% picked this

   Government subsidies to urban manufacturers can ease the problems caused by the migration of people from

   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%
2. B

   Unclear Impact3% picked this

   All problems that have economic causes must have

   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%
3. C

   Correct62% picked this

   A scarcity of agricultural products is a central element of many problems

   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%
4. D

   Weakens, if anything26% picked this

   Problems associated with migration to cities from rural areas are primarily due to trade

   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%
5. E

   Unclear Impact2% picked this

   Free trade policies can exacerbate the problems caused by

   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%