Logical Reasoning

PT151 · S4 · Q7 Politicians often advocate increased

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

Politicians often advocate increased overall economic productivity while ignoring its drawbacks.

Main Conclusion

Politicians often advocate increased overall economic productivity while ignoring its drawbacks.

Evidence

Attempting to increase the productivity of a corporation means attempting to increase its profitability, which typically leads to a reduction in the number of workers employed by that corporation.

Intermediate Conclusion

Attempting to increase productivity in the economy as a whole may benefit business owners, but will increase the number of unemployed workers.

Evaluate

Strictly speaking, the first sentence appears to be the main conclusion of the argument. "For example" is usually a premise indicator, and the example in the second sentence is being offered as evidence supporting the claim in the first sentence. But we also have the conclusion indicator "thus" at the start of the final sentence, indicating that this is a conclusion supported by evidence in the previous sentence. When we compare this final sentence to the first sentence, the final sentence seems like an intermediate conclusion supporting the more general main conclusion in the first sentence.

As we start looking for flaws or gaps in the argument, we should notice a gap in between the evidence and the intermediate conclusion. This seems to be where all of the action is in this argument.

The evidence states that attempting to increase the productivity of a corporation typically leads to a reduction in the number of workers employed by that corporation.

The intermediate conclusion shifts to a claim about attempting to increase productivity in the economy as a whole, stating that this will increase the number of unemployed workers.

How exactly is the example of increasing the productivity of a corporation directly relevant to increasing productivity in the economy as a whole? Corporations do play a role in the economy, but at best there seems to be some type of Part vs. Whole flaw happening here. At worst, the argument hasn't made it at all clear how the evidence is supposed to support the conclusion.

Goal

Look for an answer which highlights the gap between evidence about a corporation and the conclusion about the economy as a whole. There might be other flaws in the argument, and a correct answer could describe one of those flaws, so we'll keep an open mind as we look at the answers. Beware of answers which describe something that doesn't actually happen in the argument.

7.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

  1. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The argument never claims that a goal of increased productivity should be abandoned. The argument only claims that certain drawbacks result from attempting to increase productivity, and that politicians ignore these drawbacks. That's not the same as claiming that the goal should be abandoned.

    7% picked this

  2. Correct

    fails to justify its presumption

    Why this is right

    "Fails to justify its presumption" means "assumes." The intermediate conclusion is about attempting to increase productivity in the economy as a whole, while the supporting evidence is about attempting to increase productivity in a corporation. The argument assumes a similarity between these things.

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

    88% picked this

  3. unfairly criticizes politicians in general

    Bad Evidence Match

    In this answer choice, the phrase "on the basis of" refers to the evidence. The argument is not based on evidence about the actions of a few politicians.

    1% picked this

  4. fails to justify its presumption

    Bad Description

    "Fails to justify its presumption" means "assumes." The argument does not involve a comparison between the importance of attempting to increase productivity and the importance of the interests of workers or business owners. It doesn't assume that one of these is more important than the other.

    2% picked this

  5. fails to address all potential

    Bad Objection

    The argument doesn't address all potential drawbacks and benefits, but that's not a flaw in the argument. The argument is just claiming that certain drawbacks exist regardless of any benefits, and that politicians ignore these drawbacks that do exist.

    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.

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