Logical Reasoning

PT137 · S3 · Q22 Consumer advocate: There is no doubt

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

Consumer advocate: There is no doubt that the government is responsible for the increased cost of gasoline, because the government's policies have significantly increased consumer demand for fuel, and as a result of increasing demand, the price of gasoline has risen steadily.

Conclusion

The government is responsible for the higher cost of gas

Evidence

The government's policies have increased consumer demand for fuel, and as a result of that, the price of gas has gone up.

Evaluation

At first blush, this just sounds like a valid argument. The government caused A, and A caused B, so the government is responsible for B.

If we were trying to argue the Anti-Conclusion, what would we say? Given the evidence, how could we argue that the government wasn't responsible for the increased cost of gas?

Maybe we could say,

Goal

Tough to know what we're looking for other than something like, .

22.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the consumer advocate's argument?

  1. Correct

    The government can bear responsibility

    Why this is right

    First let's clarify the vocab here: If A causes B, and B causes C, then A indirectly causes C and B directly causes C (B is the proximate cause). The author is clearly thinking that the government isn't just responsible for the increasing consumer demand, but also for the further ripple effects of gas prices rising. If we negated this answer it would say, "The government cannot be responsible for something it indirectly causes", which would destroy this argument.

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

    53% picked this

  2. The government is responsible for

    Out of Scope: unforeseen

    This is tempting, but we don't actually know whether the rising gas prices were unforeseen or expected. Negating this and getting "the government isn't responsible for unforeseen consequences" wouldn't necessarily weaken the argument, since we don't know whether the rising gas prices was an unforeseen consequence.

    11% picked this

  3. Consumer demand for gasoline cannot

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: X can't go up without Y going up All we know is that in this case, an increase in consumer demand caused an increase in gas prices. The author isn't committed to the idea that this connection always holds. I could say, "Tony popped a balloon behind Angela's head, causing her to spill a drink, which then led Billy to slip on the floor. Thus, Tony is responsible for Billy's slipping." That assignment of blame isn't assuming that "a drink cannot be spilled without someone slipping on the floor".

    19% picked this

  4. The government has an obligation

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: obligation Too Strong: ensure Whether a government has an obligation to do something is a separate issue from whether it's responsible for causing something. I can say that the government's policy caused a scarcity of toilet paper at supermarkets. That doesn't mean I'm assuming that the government has an obligation to ensure that supermarkets do not run low on toilet paper.

    1% picked this

  5. If the government pursues policies

    Too Strong: tend to Opposite Logic

    If I say, "Abby is friendly, and she got good customer service at Starbucks", that doesn't mean I'm assuming that "if you're not friendly, you tend to not get good customer service at Starbucks". Maybe most people, friendly or not, get good customer service. Similarly, we heard that "the govt pursued a policy that increased demand, and as a result prices went up". That doesn't allow us to say the author is assuming, "when the govt doesn't pursue such policies, prices tend to remain stable". Maybe the price of gas tends to be volatile, whether or not the government pursues a policy that increases demand. If I say, "Megan is responsible for making Jack laugh", I'm not assuming that "If Megan isn't around, Jack tends to not laugh."

    15% 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