Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT4 S1 Q5 Explanation

Economic considerations color every aspect

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsNecessary Assumption

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Economic considerations color every aspect of international dealings, and nations are just like individuals in that the lender sets the terms of its dealings with the borrower. That is why a nation cannot be a world leader.

What this question is testing

Necessary Assumption

Premise

The argument starts with: lenders set the terms of dealings with borrowers. So if Nation A borrows from Nation B, Nation B is in charge of the terms.

Conclusion

Therefore, a debtor nation cannot be a world leader.

Evaluate

Watch the gap. The premise is about who sets the terms of a particular financial deal. The conclusion is about world leadership in general. There is a missing step: having someone else dictate your terms must somehow be incompatible with being a world leader.

Imagine the argument: That only works if "having someone else set your terms" rules out being head of household. Otherwise the conclusion does not follow.

Goal

Find the missing link: a nation whose terms are dictated by another nation cannot be a world leader.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
5.

The reasoning in the passage assumes which one of

Answer choices

  1. Bad Assumption3% picked this

    A nation that does not lend to any other nation cannot be

    The argument is about debtor nations, not non-lenders. The conclusion concerns nations that owe money — it does not require that not lending rules out world leadership. A nation could refrain from lending without owing anything; the argument has no claim about such nations.

  2. Too Strong9% picked this

    A nation that can set the terms of its dealings with other nations is certain to

    This is too strong and goes the wrong direction. The argument needs that being a debtor excludes world leadership, but it does not need that setting terms guarantees world leadership. The argument can stand even if some nations set terms but are not world leaders.

  3. Correct85% picked this

    A nation that has the terms of its dealings with another nation set by that nation cannot

    Why this is right

    This is the missing link. The argument established that a debtor nation has its terms set by the lender nation. To get to the conclusion that a debtor nation cannot be a world leader, we need: a nation that has its terms set by another nation cannot be a world leader. Plug that in and the conclusion follows. Negate it (some nation that has its terms set by another nation can be a world leader) and the argument falls apart — being a debtor would not necessarily block world leadership.

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

  4. Bad Assumption3% picked this

    A nation that is a world leader can borrow from another nation as long as that other nation does not set the terms of

    This says a world leader can borrow as long as the lender does not set the terms. But the argument premise is that lenders always set the terms — so this scenario contradicts the very premise the argument relies on. Even setting that aside, the argument needs to exclude debtors from leadership, not carve out exceptions allowing them in.

  5. Bad Assumption1% picked this

    A nation that has no dealings with any other nation cannot be

    The argument is about nations that owe money to other nations — not about nations that have no dealings at all. It says nothing about whether complete isolation rules out world leadership. The argument does not depend on this claim.

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