- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 904
- Joined: Apr 11, 2011
Not to mention I think some of the reasoning you use here is a bit off: can the "most profitable" investment available really "decrease in value more than any other investment?" It seems to me those are, by definition, incompatible. That is, the investment that is the most profitable option over a given period of time is simply defined as the one that outperforms the rest (in this case has the highest rate of return). No need to make it any more complicated than that.
Further, don't bother trying to incorporate extra information that isn't supplied in, or defined by, the stimulus. This is a Must be True question, so everything you need is given to you. Here you're given the fairly straightforward idea that when you are losing more than even the best investment possible can gain you, the minimum that you can lose is defined by that best investment. All investments that aren't as profitable will lose more. Hence, losing more means we're dealing with a less profitable investment.
Consider this: at no point will this test ever require, or even expect, you to bring in the level of outside knowledge/consideration that you've attempted here. So as soon as you feel yourself beginning to do that, hit the brakes. Otherwise you're going to get punished for it.
So to answer your question about LSAC expecting you to bring in knowledge: no. They hope you do because they know it will screw you up; they could never require you to in order to answer the question.
And, again, don't ever, EVER question the validity of the information provided to you in a Must be True stimulus. Instead use it to make determinations of consequences and outcomes that said information would support or prove. In this instance your entire knowledge of economics is limited to two sentences; go beyond that and prepare to get burned.
PowerScore Test Preparation
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/jonmdenning
My LSAT Articles: http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/author/jon-denning