Logical Reasoning

PT151 · S2 · Q3 Legislator: A foreign company is

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

Legislator: A foreign company is attempting to buy FerroMetal, a domestic iron-mining company.

Conclusion (should)

We should prohibit this sale (of our domestic iron-mining company FerroMetal to a foreign company).

Intermediate Conclusion

We need a dependable supply of iron ore.

Evidence (since)

Manufacturing is central to our economy.

If a foreign company buys FerroMetal, we will have no grounds to stop foreign companies from buying other iron-mining companies.

Then foreigners will control most iron mining, leaving our manufacturers at their mercy.

Finally, our manufacturers will no longer be able to rely on a domestic supply of iron ore.

Evaluate

This argument seems to have a couple intermediate conclusions, as we have a "since X, Y" construction, as well as a "the end result will be" construction. Both of those constructions can be thought of as causal or reasoning, depending on the context.

With so many ideas, it's hard to know where to begin or how to organize. It might be best to do a second read, claim-by-claim, to think about where it seems to go off the rails / where we'd want to object.

The first two sentences give us the background and Conclusion, so we know that we will be pretending to inhabit the role of Opposing Counsel and make a case that .

Maybe we're lovers of the free market and think that private companies should be allowed to do whatever they wish without government intrusion.

The 3rd sentence is saying, . How does that connect to the conclusion? The author must be thinking that if we sell off a domestic iron mining company to a foreign company, it will threaten our ability to have a reliable supply of iron ore.

We might already think of objections such as - what if we already have plenty of iron ore, or this company is really small and un-impactful, so selling off this company would have no big impact on our supply of iron ore? - why is it bad for a foreign company to control a company that mines some of our domestic iron ore? Will they not sell it to us? Won't it still be part of our supply of iron ore?

The 4th sentence sounds like a really dubious idea in and of itself: If we let FerroMetal go to a foreign company, then we will have no grounds to stop other foreign companies from similar purchases?

You won't? Why not? Why are you so convinced that as soon as you set this precedent, there's no way to put the gene back in the bottle?

The 5th claim also sounds like a big jump: Soon foreigners will control most of the iron mining here.

Really, soon, most will be under foreign control? Are their tons of foreign firms waiting on the sidelines to pounce as soon as we break the seal by selling FerroMetal?

Goal

It's pretty hard to limit our focus here to any one specific objection. The author seems to make a lot of questionable moves that are vulnerable to objections.

We might do best to remember our Anti-Conclusion perspective, and then deal with answers as they come, once we see what part of this argument they're focused on.

3.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning of the legislator's argument?

  1. The argument draws a conclusion

    Wrong Flaw: not Circular

    This answer describes the famous Circular reasoning flaw. The conclusion here was "we should prohibit this sale". Was there also a premise that said "we should prohibit this sale"? No, that idea wasn't expressed twice.

    1% picked this

  2. The argument takes for granted

    Wrong Flaw: not Part to Whole

    This argument describes the famous flaw Part vs. Whole. Does the author provide a premise about one particular industry (iron-mining, in this case) and then give a conclusion about industry in general? No, the conclusion is about the specific sale of FerroMetal within the particular industry of iron-mining.

    1% picked this

  3. The argument defends a practice

    Bad Conclusion/Premise Match

    Is the author's conclusion defending a practice? No it's suggesting we prohibit a practice. Is the author's evidence (on the grounds that) saying that something is widely accepted? No, there are like six premises and none of them say that. This type of move, "Because most people think X is true, X must be true" is similar to the famous Inappropriate Appeal to Opinion flaw.

    0% picked this

  4. Correct

    The argument presents a chain

    Why this is right

    Does the author present a chain of possible consequences for a given event? Yes, starting with the 4th sentence, our author says, "If we allow the foreign company to buy FerroMetal, this given event will launch this chain of consequences ... - no grounds to stop foreign companies from buying other companies - soon, foreigners control most iron mining - end result is that our manufacturers will no longer be able to rely on a domestic supply of iron ore." Is our author presenting those consequences as if they are the only possible chain of consequences, like those consequences are certain to happen? Yes, actually. the author never hedges his wording, as though these things might / could / probably will happen. He presents them with certainty. We could call this flaw the Slippery Slope flaw, in which someone says, "no, we can't do that because it will start a cascade of things we don't want. We can't socialize medicine by having single-payer healthcare because that's a slippery slope towards socialism."

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

    95% picked this

  5. The argument concludes that one

    Weak Conclusion Match Bad Evidence Match

    The main conclusion is not causal at all. It's normative: "we should prohibit this sale". So on a quick look, we should bail from this answer after we read that first half. But sometimes Flaw answer choices will use the verb 'concludes', not in reference to the Main Conclusion but in reference to the author's thought process in getting to the main conclusion (even as a synonym for assumes). The author is definitely assuming (mentally concluding) that selling FerroMetal to a foreign company would cause a series of events (we can't stop other foreign companies from buying iron companies / foreigners control most of iron mining / domestic manufacturers don't have reliable supply to depend on). But it would be crazy for us to say about any of those events that they "would have to precede (come before) FerroMetal gets sold to a foreign company".

    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