Logical Reasoning

PT152 · S4 · Q8 Quartzbrook Farms wanted to test

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

Quartzbrook Farms wanted to test all of its cattle for a rare disease so it could export beef to a country that requires such testing.

Government's Conclusion

Sorry, Quartzbrook, you're not allowed to test your cattle for a rare disease in order to be allowed to sell your beef in Country X

Government's Evidence

There's no good scientific reason to be worried about this disease, and if we let you test your beef to humor Country X, it's just going to freak out our citizens and make them insist on all domestic beef being tested for this kooky concern.

Evaluate

The government has to weigh some tradeoffs: - if they let QF test its beef, then QF can sell its beef in Country X (governments want to help their domestic businesses thrive)

but

- if they let QF test its beef, then the local citizenry will start to worry,

Goal

The government is prioritizing over .

So the government would be violating a principle that put more weight on allowing Quartzbrook to exercise its prerogative to test its beef however they want to, for the sake of expanding their potential customer base.

8.

The government's prohibition of testing is most at odds with which one of the following principles?

  1. Correct

    Governments can rightfully require product

    Why this is right

    This rule says that "governments cannot rightfully prohibit testing". In our paragraph, the government is prohibiting testing. Simple as that. Of course LSAC is making the simplicity harder to see by starting this answer with a rule that doesn't apply to this situation: if testing a product is governments deemed necessary to → can require it protect public safety And then the second rule given, the one that is relevant to our situation has an "even if" idea attached at the end. Suppose I tell you: I'm coming to your recital, even if I have to miss a work meeting to do it. The core truth is "I'm coming to your recital". There's no logical difference between whether coming to the recital does / doesn't force me to miss a work meeting. I'm coming either way. Similarly, we'd read this rule as "whether or not testing a product is justified by the potential risk to public safety, the government cannot prohibit testing."

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

    80% picked this

  2. Governments should seek to determine

    Compatible

    The government in this story has seemingly determined for itself that product safety testing is not justified by the risk posed. Have they failed to provide this information to Quartzbrook? We have no idea. It seems likely that in denying Quartzbrook the right to test, they would have shared their reason why.

    3% picked this

  3. A government should not allow

    Opposite

    This principle nicely justifies the government's action.

    11% picked this

  4. A government should not spend

    Compatible

    As soon as we read, "a government should not spend taxpayers' money performing product safety tests if ... ", just pause and ask yourself: was this government spending taxpayer's money performing product safety tests? No. They were actually refusing to let a company use its own money to perform a test. The only way the government could be violating this principle is if it were spending taxpayers' money on safety tests.

    1% picked this

  5. It is fair for a

    Compatible

    Violating this principle would mean that a government requires foreign companies to test products before it will allow them to be imported, but the government doesn't require domestic companies to do the same. In other words, the U.S. requires foreign beef companies to test their beef for disease X in order for it to be imported into the U.S., but it doesn't require U.S. beef companies to test their beef for disease X. Does that sound like what this government is doing? No. We were never told that this government requires foreign companies to test products. What's confusing is that in the stimulus we are hearing about other governments who do require foreign companies to test beef. But Quartzbrook's government, the one that our question stem cares about, doesn't have any such requirement for foreign companies (that we know of). So we can't say that Quartzbrook's government is violating this principle.

    5% 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