Logical Reasoning

PT157 · S2 · Q4 Economist: Our country needs

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: Our country needs as much capital as possible from overseas investors in order to sustain our economy.

Main Conclusion (Therefore)

To sustain our economy, we should pass laws making it much more difficult for overseas investors to remove their capital.

Intermediate Conclusion (Hence)

We cannot afford any reduction in the amount of capital that these investors have invested here.

Evidence

Our country needs as much capital as possible from overseas investors in order to sustain our economy.

Evaluate

There isn't a huge gap in logic between needing as much capital as possible (the evidence) and not wanting any reduction in the existing amount of capital (the intermediate conclusion).

But there is a significant gap between the intermediate conclusion and the main conclusion. Wanting to avoid any reduction in investments does not automatically support the idea that we should pass laws making it more difficult for investors to remove their capital.

This main conclusion is a recommendation, so we can analyze this using our Plan / Goal thinking, if we'd like.

PLAN: pass laws to make it hard for overseas investors to remove their capital.

GOAL: maximize the capital we have from overseas investors.

How could this Plan fail to achieve its Goal? - it it not feasible or legal for us to pass laws restricting foreign capital?

- would people fail to cooperate with the laws and remove their capital anyway?

- could it backfire in some way that actually reduces the capital we have from overseas investors?

Goal

Look for an answer that suggests the recommendation might backfire or be impossible to implement or enforce. But, since objections can take many forms, read answers with an open mind. We want to notice if one attacks the recommendation in another way.

4.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the economist's reasoning?

  1. To sustain its economy, the

    Out of Scope: diversify

    This brings up something ELSE our economy needs to sustain itself. That's irrelevant to this conversation about how to best approach our need to maximize foreign capital. You might need to get a great LSAT score to get into Yale. If someone is telling you their recommendation for how to get a great LSAT score, it would be irrelevant for you to say, "To get into Yale, I also need a really good GPA." Cool, can we have one conversation at a time? This answer gives us no way to argue that passing these capital-extraction laws would fail to maximize our capital from foreign investors.

    2% picked this

  2. Correct

    Laws that would make it

    Why this is right

    This is a classic "the recommendation backfires" weakener. The economist argues for laws that would make it harder for overseas investors to remove their capital, in order to retain as much overseas capital as possible. But this answer reveals a Faulty Implication of that plan: If investors know that once they put money in, they cannot get it out, they will simply not invest in the first place. The country needs "as much capital as possible" from overseas investors, but the restrictive laws would reduce the total pool of overseas capital by deterring new investment, directly undermining the stated goal of the policy.

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

    83% picked this

  3. The historical periods during which

    Premise Support

    This answer seems to just corroborate the opening premise. This answer provides historical evidence that overseas investment is correlated with economic growth.

    1% picked this

  4. In countries other than the

    Weaker Impact

    This basically says that when other countries have tried this Plan, it hasn't been 100% effective. Some foreign capital was still removed. But the laws might have prevented most capital removal, which would still make them a useful policy. The goal is to maximize the capital from investors. These laws might not be perfect, but if they prevent 95% of foreign capital from being removed, they could still be maximizing the amount we can keep. We have to compare how much is kept WITH these laws vs. how much is kept WITHOUT these laws, in order to judge whether the plan is effective. This answer would be trying to argue that if it isn't perfect, it isn't effective.

    14% picked this

  5. Two years ago, the country

    Unclear Impact

    We have no information about the effects of those laws. Were they helpful? Harmful? Neutral? Did they deter new investment? Did they prevent capital flight? This answer provides a bare fact without any indication of its consequences. It could potentially strengthen the argument (if the existing restrictions helped), weaken it (if they backfired), or have no effect at all (if they were insignificant). Without knowing the outcome, this answer's directional impact is unclear.

    1% 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