Logical Reasoning

PT143 · S4 · Q26 Economist: Countries with an uneducated

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

Economist: Countries with an uneducated population are destined to be weak economically and politically, whereas those with an educated population have governments that display a serious financial commitment to public education.

Conclusion

Any nation whose govt committed serious $$ to public education will avoid economic and political weakness

Evidence

Countries with uneducated citizens are destined to be economically and politically weak. + Countries with an educated population have govt who committed serious $$ to public education.

Evaluation

Since there is conditional logic and repeating symbols throughout, we should diagram what's going on here.

Uneducated → E + P weak A → B Educated → serious $$ to PE ~A → C ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ Serious $$ to PE → ~(E + P weak) C → ~B

Since we have a solid diagram, we don't really need to think about why this is flawed, but conversationally we could say a couple things: 1. committing money to public ed doesn't guarantee an educated population. It's just a trait that is true of all the population that HAVE managed to get an educated population. 2. we have a rule that says uneducated countries will end up weak, but that doesn't allow us to infer that educated companies will avoid being weak.

Goal

I would look for two conditional premises. The trigger of one of them should be the opposite of the trigger of the other one. The conclusion should bring the remaining two ideas together, but one of them will be the opposite of how it appeared in the premise.

26.

The pattern of flawed reasoning in which one of the following arguments is most similar to that in the economist's argument?

  1. Animal species with a very

    Bad Premise Match

    One of the two premises is not conditional ("changes can remove the traditional supply"), so it's not worth engaging in this one any further.

    4% picked this

  2. Correct

    People incapable of empathy are

    Why this is right

    incapable of empathy ? not good candidates ~A ? ~B capable of empathy ? easily manipulate A ? C ????????????????????????????????????????????????? easily manipulate ? good candidates C ? B (It doesn't matter to the logic whether ideas show up as negatives or positives originally. It only matters whether they keep that state or flip to an opposite state. If we say "If A, then B. A happened, so B must have happened" that would be logically equivalent to saying "If A, then ~B. A happened, so B must not have happened.")

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

    68% picked this

  3. People who cannot give orders

    Bad Premise Match

    There's only one premise, so we wouldn't bother reading this one.

    13% picked this

  4. Poets who create poetry of

    Weak Premise Match

    The two premises aren't conditionals. They're saying "X is most likely to be Y" and "Z is rarely W". Not worth reading.

    9% picked this

  5. People who dislike exercise are

    Weak Premise Match

    The two premises aren't conditionals. They're saying "X is unlikely to be Y" and "Z is generally W". Not worth reading.

    6% 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