Logical Reasoning

PT145 · S2 · Q24 Tariffs on particular products

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

Tariffs on particular products tend to protect the small percentage of the population that works in industries that make those products while hurting everyone else through higher costs.

Conclusion

Politicians would be more likely to be reelected if they voted against these tariffs on particular products.

Evidence

Most people oppose tariffs on particular products. These tariffs tend to protect small % of people who work in that industry while hurting everyone else through higher costs.

Evaluate

This argument is mainly making a move from "Most people oppose position X" to .

Intuitively it sounds like opposing an unpopular position would help your reelection chances, but maybe one's reelection chances hinge more on something else.

Most people support universal background checks on gun purchases and raising the minimum wage, but that doesn't mean a Republican would be more likely to be reelected by talking about gun control and minimum wage boosts.

Most people support tight restrictions on late term abortions, but that doesn't mean a Democrat would be more likely to be reelected by running on tight restrictions for late term abortions.

A Republican wouldn't run on gun control, because the vast majority of people who like gun control are Democrats and aren't going to vote for that Republican just because she agrees with them on this issue.

A Democrat wouldn't run on restricting abortions because the vast majority of people who oppose abortions are Republicans and aren't going to vote for that Democrat.

A stronger argument would say,

Since reelection basically hinges on getting more of "your voters" to turnout, it's less important whether "most voters oppose X" and more important whether .

Goal

Look for an answer offering the Missing Link of, , or look for an answer that, when negated, allows us to say that .

24.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

  1. Correct

    Supporters of tariffs on particular

    Why this is right

    Whenever we see a Necessary Assumption answer is ruling out an idea with the word "not", it's worth negating the answer by removing the 'not' to see if it turns into an objection. If it were the case that "supporters of tariffs are significantly more likely than opponents of tariffs to base their vote on a politician's stance on tariffs", does that weaken? Definitely. That sounds like a way to argue that "even though most voters oppose tariffs, a politician could still be wise to vote for tariffs." For a lot of people, voting is complex calculation of many different factors, and their opposition to tariffs might be really far down the list. (Sort of like choosing a law school is a complex calculation of many different factors. It could be true that "most law school applicants don't want to live in a state that charges high taxes", but see if that keeps them from accepting admission to Stanford Law) Some voters are single-issue voters: they care so much about one issue, that they vote based on that. (Pro-life / anti-abortion is one such issue that is famous for being the reason a voter chooses his/her preferred candidate) So this answer, stated positively, is saying "our author is assuming that tariffs aren't an issue where it's way more likely to HELP you if you support it than HURT you if you oppose it."

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

    67% picked this

  2. Politicians always vote according to

    Too Strong: always

    The author has not committed herself to this extreme maxim. If we negate this, it will be saying "there is at least one instance when a politician did not vote according to the most likely reelection path". That one instance wouldn't hurt this argument in the slightest. Furthermore, the argument isn't about what did / does happen. It's a hypothetical about what would happen, if someone did something. When I say, "If Marty complimented his mom more, he'd see her smile more often", I'm not assuming that "Marty always does whatever maximizes his mom's smiling".

    10% picked this

  3. Politicians should support only general

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: only Out of Scope: general tariffs Opposite Logic We don't know anything about general tariffs. We're never allowed to assume that the "opposite trait" is true of the "opposite category". You can't go from hearing "Black lives matter" to thinking we said "non-black lives don't matter". We only heard that you should not support particular tariffs because they are unpopular. That doesn't mean we should support general tariffs because they are popular.

    2% picked this

  4. Politicians should never support measures

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: never Out of Scope: should The author isn't generalizing about any case in which a measure favors a small percentage. The author is focused less on how big a percentage is helped and more on the idea that "most people oppose a measure". Most people may support food assistance for the poor, even if that's only a small percentage of the population that benefits. Furthermore, nothing in this argument is about what should be done. The author's argument is purely descriptive. "If they did X, Y would more likely occur." That's not saying they should do X.

    7% picked this

  5. People who would be hurt

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: know tariffs will hurt Too Specific: generally "Generally" means more than 50% of the time. Does it make any different to this author whether 51% vs. 49% of people who would be hurt by tariffs know they would be hurt by tariffs? Of course not. The author doesn't rely on people's accurate perception of how tariffs will affect them. It's just relying on polls that show that most people oppose such tariffs (you might oppose tariffs, even if tariffs benefit you or are neutral to you).

    14% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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