Logical Reasoning

PT23 · S2 · Q25 Economist: No economic system that

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: No economic system that is centrally planned can efficiently allocate resources, and efficient allocation of resources is a necessary condition for achieving a national debt of less than 5 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Conclusion (it follows)

Any nation with a centrally planned economy has a national debt that is at least 5% of GDP.

Evidence

Any economic system that is centrally planned cannot efficiently allocate resources.

If you can't efficiently allocate resources, then you can't achieve a national debt of less than 5% of GDP.

Evaluate

Whenever we're doing Parallel, we try to decide whether it's worth deriving a formal, algebraic recipe to the argument or whether we should just capture the reasoning with a slogan or principle.

If we see conditional logic on regular Parallel or Parallel Flaw, it heavily suggests that it would be worth thinking about the algebraic recipe.

We have two conditional premises that chain together. Let's think about what that chain would look like:

Centrally → can't efficiently → can't get planned econ allocate resources debt < 5%

The conclusion is also conditional.

Centrally → can't get planned econ debt < 5%

It looks like a valid conclusion, since it's just saying,

Goal

So let's look for an argument that's has three claims, all of them conditional. The two premises should chain together. And the conclusion should say .

P1: A → B P2: B → C C: A → C

25.

The pattern of reasoning exhibited by the economist's argument is most similar to that exhibited by which one of the following?

  1. Not all mammals are without

    Bad Conclusion Match

    We can tell from the fact that this conclusion is not conditional (not all A's are B) that this won't be our match.

    3% picked this

  2. Correct

    All of the rural districts

    Why this is right

    There are three conditionals (all, only where, no). The first claim is the conclusion, signified by the because that shows that the 2nd and 3rd claim are providing support. Do those two claims chain together? Yes. Rural → no large concentr. → no major air district of automobiles pollution problems Does the conclusion connect the 1st thing to the 3rd thing? Yup, it says Rural → no major air district pollution problems

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

    43% picked this

  3. All of the ungulates are

    Bad Evidence Match

    This does not have three conditionals (all, most, any). So we can throw it out. The two premises do not chain together, because we have no way to guarantee that ungulates would not attack a human being.

    8% picked this

  4. All rock stars who are

    Weak Conclusion Match

    This does have three conditionals (all, all, necessary). The final claim is the conclusion, signified by this implies that. Do the two premises chain together? Sure. When it comes to rock stars, famous → have own record comp have own receive profits record comp → above royalties Okay, so the conclusion should be saying something like "any famous rock star receives company profits over and above regular royalties". But this conclusion is saying "any famous rock star receives large regular royalties". "Receive profits over and above regular royalties" is not the same as "receives large regular royalties". The phrase 'over and above' doesn't mean that they receive larger-than-average regular royalties. It's saying, "In addition to the regular royalties they receive (from radio play / streams) for being a recording artist, they are also getting money (like dividends) from being the business owner of a record company".

    18% picked this

  5. Every mutual fund manager knows

    Bad Evidence/Validity Match

    This does have three conditionals (every, no, no). The final claim is the conclusion, signified by one must conclude that. Do the two premises chain together? Not exactly. The first conditional ends with "KNOWS someone who inside trades". The second conditional begins with "IS someone who inside trades". mutual → knows someone fund mgr who insider trades someone who known by 1+ insider trades → mutual fund mgr You could still make an inference by combining them, but it would be something like, "if you're a mutual fund manager, then you know someone who is known by at least one other mutual fund manager". Instead, it says "if you're a mutual fund manager then you're known by at least one person who trades on inside information".

    27% 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