Logical Reasoning

PT6 · S2 · Q25 Certain governments subsidize certain basic

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

Certain governments subsidize certain basic agricultural products in order to guarantee an adequate domestic production of them.

Situation

The government subsidizes certain products in the hopes of making sure there's adequate domestic production of them.

But the subsidies lead to more intense farming, which leads to soil exhaustion, which leads to reduced yields (i.e. lower production).

Evaluate

The stem asks for a situation similar

What was the relationship between the declared intent ("let's guarantee adequate domestic production of these crops!") and a circumstance relevant to it?

That last part is being real cryptic: a circumstance?

We got a causal chain with multiple "circumstances". subsidies >> intense >> soil >> reduced farming exhaustion yields

But we know the fundamental relationship between the intent of the plan and this causal chain is that the plan is kind of backfiring and leading to the something that undermines the intent.

The subsidies were meant to guarantee sufficient production of crops, but they are leading to drastically reduced yields.

Goal

Find an answer in which a Plan undermines its stated Goal.

25.

The situation above is most nearly similar to which one of the following situations with respect to the relationship between the declared intent of a governmental practice and a circumstance relevant to it?

Certain governments subsidize theaters in
Weaker Match
Since the goal is to "attract foreign tourists", we'd want to see an answer saying that this plan has actually decreased tourism. But instead, it's just saying "it fails to attract tourism".
0% picked this
Certain governments restrict imports in
Bad Match
The stated goal here is to "keep domestic producers in business", so we'd want to see that the plan results in some domestic producers going out of business. But we don't hear that; in fact we hear the opposite that some of them are making bank.
7% picked this
Correct
Certain governments build strong armed
Why this is right
The declared intent is to avoid armed conflict. Does the plan actually lead to more armed conflict? Yes, we have to use these forces in actual combat (i.e. armed conflict). This isn't a great match for the original in which incentives sort of caused our plan to backfire. In this case, it feels more like the way we're going about achieving our goal necessitates doing the opposite of our goal. But this is still our best match in terms of plan that ends up going against its stated intent.
Skill tested: Principle-Conform · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
57% picked this
Certain governments reduce taxes on
Bad Match
Since the stated intent is to "stimulate private investment", we would want to hear that this plan decreased private investment. However, we never hear that. We just get some wishy washy ideas about how investing might not lead to profits.
4% picked this
Certain governments pass traffic laws
Weaker Match
The goal of this plan is to "make travel safer", so we'd want to see if the plan made travel less safe. We hear about travel becoming less safe, but it's due to population growth, not due to the government's traffic laws. Since the Plan isn't the thing undermining its Goal, it's not as good a match for the original.
32% 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