Logical Reasoning

PT130 · S1 · Q23 Politician: We should impose

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

Politician: We should impose a tariff on imported fruit to make it cost consumers more than domestic fruit.

Conclusion

We should impose a tariff on imported fruit, so that the price consumers pay for it is more than that for domestic fruit.

Evidence

If we don't impose the tariff, then foreign growers will be able to sell their better fruit at a lower price, resulting in our farmland being converted into more profitable industrial uses. We'll end up losing the unique farming way of life.

Evaluation

The consequences of not imposing the tariff sound pretty good: - better fruit at lower prices (from foreign sources) - our farmland is converted into more lucrative uses

What was the downside? We would lose the farming way of life. When we're asked to find a supporting principle and the argument has competing concerns, we usually see a correct answer tell us that one concern is more important than the other.

Goal

Look for something saying, , or .

23.

The politician's recommendation most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?

A country should put its
Bad Premise Match
It would be in our economic interest to not have the tariff (cheaper prices for better fruit and more lucrative uses of our current farmland). Preserving farming as a unique way of life is a cultural interest.
11% picked this
The interests of producers should
Too Strong: "always"
Consumers would probably be better off with no tariff, because then they would buy imported fruit that is cheaper and better. Domestic fruit producers would be better off with the tariff. In that sense, this principle kind of works. However, would the author say that this is always true? The author might just want to prioritize the interests of fruit producers in this instance. Moreover, the industrial users of land are also producers, and those producers would be better off with no tariff. So it's too hard to say that by following this rule we would impose the tariff, and it's hard to say that the author was invoking a principle this strong and expansive in order to justify the tariff.
7% picked this
Correct
Social concerns should sometimes take
Why this is right
No tariff is more economically efficient = cheaper/better fruit and more lucrative uses of farmland. Imposing the tariff accomplishes a social concern = preserving the farming way of life. The author is definitely, in this case (sometimes), thinking that the social concern is more important than the economic efficiency.
Skill tested: Principle-Conform · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
71% picked this
A country should put the
Unclear Impact Irrelevant Comparison
No tariff benefits some of this country's citizens (people who want to buy better fruit at a cheaper price). Imposing the tariff benefits some of this country's other citizens (people who don't want farming to vanish as a way of life). Our principle needs to rank these two interests against each other, not the interests of our country vs. other country.
10% picked this
Government intervention sometimes creates more
Opposite
If the government intervened, by imposing a tariff, it would be less economic efficiency. Not having a tariff means cheaper prices on higher quality goods, and it means converting farmland into more lucrative uses.
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