Logical Reasoning

PT8 · S1 · Q15 Economist: Some policymakers believe

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

Economist: Some policymakers believe that our country’s continued economic growth requires a higher level of personal savings than we currently have.

Backers' Position

The proposal: tax-exempt savings accounts (interest tax-deferred until withdrawal). Backers claim implementation would increase the amount of money available for banks to loan, at small cost in lost tax revenue.

Author's Move

The economist points to past similar tax-incentive programs: virtually all the money invested through them was diverted from other personal savings, leaving overall personal savings unchanged.

Evaluate

The author is not attacking the goal (more savings) and not arguing the proposal cannot physically be carried out. Instead, the author is challenging a specific factual premise the backers rely on — that the program will actually increase the pool of savings (and thus loanable money). Past evidence shows it just shuffles existing savings around.

Goal

Find the answer that describes "challenges a premise of the proposal."

15.

The author criticizes the proposed tax-incentive program by

Correct
challenging a premise on which
Why this is right
This nails the move. The backers' proposal rests on the premise that the tax-incentive program will increase the amount of money available for banks to loan (i.e., it will boost overall personal savings). The author challenges that exact premise by citing past evidence: similar programs just diverted savings, leaving the overall level unchanged. Direct match.
Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
49% picked this
pointing out a disagreement among
Bad Description
The author does not describe a disagreement among policymakers. The stimulus mentions "some policymakers" believe more savings is needed and that the proposal's "backers" make claims — but the author never frames anyone as disagreeing with each other. The author personally challenges the proposal using past evidence; no inter-policymaker dispute is invoked.
0% picked this
demonstrating that the proposal’s implementation
Bad Description
The author does not say the proposal cannot be implemented — that would be a feasibility critique. The author concedes the program could be implemented; the critique is that once implemented, it will not produce the claimed result (more savings). That is challenging an effect, not denying feasibility.
5% picked this
questioning the judgment of the
Bad Description
This is tempting because past cases are cited. But the author does not cite past cases to question the backers' judgment — there is no claim that these specific backers previously advocated failed programs. The author cites similar tax-incentive programs generally, to show this kind of program does not work. The argument is about evidence on the program's effects, not about the backers' personal track record.
42% picked this
disputing the assumption that a
Bad Description
The author concedes the goal (more personal savings to support economic growth) — the stimulus opens by reporting that "some policymakers believe" more savings is needed, and the author never disputes that. The author's critique is targeted at this particular program's effectiveness, not at whether more savings is needed. (E) names the wrong target.
4% 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