Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT131 S3 Q14 Explanation

Economist: A country's trade

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsMethod

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Economist: A country's trade deficit may indicate weakness in its economy, but it does not in itself weaken that economy. So restricting imports to reduce a trade deficit would be like sticking a thermometer into a hope of bringing down a patient's feverish temperature.

What this question is testing

Method

Your task

Describe how the argument proceeds — the technique it uses to reach its conclusion.

Common trap

Answers that describe a method the argument doesn't actually use.

Winning move

Track the role each statement plays, then match that to the choice describing the same moves.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
14.

The economist's argument employs which one of the

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope1% picked this

    claiming that a crucial assumption entails

    Out of Scope: "claiming a crucial assumption" There are assumptions people might be making that are kinda insinuated by the author's conclusion, but this answer choice is saying that the argument claimed something about a crucial assumption, which is not true.

  2. Doesn't Find Fault With Analogy13% picked this

    demonstrating that an analogy explicitly used to establish a certain conclusion

    The author is the one presenting an analogy. She accepts the truth of the analogy (which, confusingly, shows two situations in which people would be using faulty logic). Also, the analogy is in her conclusion, it's not being used by someone else to establish their conclusion.

  3. Correct86% picked this

    appealing to an analogy in order to indicate the futility of a

    Why this is right

    Yes, the author is saying that restricting imports as a means of reducing your trade deficit would be just as futile as dipping a thermometer into cold water as a means of reducing someone's fever.

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

  4. Out of Scope1% picked this

    calling into question the authority on the basis of which a

    Out of Scope: "the authority on which a claim is based" Was there some claim made that was supported by an authority? No. There's no part of the argument that sounds anything like the author impugning the expertise of a someone who supported a given claim.

  5. Too Strong: "disastrous consequences"0% picked this

    showing that a recommended course of action would have

    Not sure what we could possibly match up with "disastrous consequences". He's just saying that a given approach wouldn't work, not that it leads to the apocalypse.

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