LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8917
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#22909
Complete Question Explanation

Justify the Conclusion. The correct answer choice is (C)

Whenever the stimulus begins by outlining someone else's argument, you can be sure that the author's conclusion will be the exact opposite of theirs. In this particular case, the author counters the argument that the division of large countries leads to more national tariffs and increased barriers to free trade by pointing out that small countries do not see themselves as economically self-sufficient. "So what?" you may ask. Figuring out the logic behind the author's premise will help you tremendously in connecting that premise to the her conclusion.

If small countries do not see themselves as economically self-sufficient, then we can reasonably expect them to avoid imposing any tariffs that impede imports and free trade. Because the author fails to explain how a country's perceived lack of self-sufficiency is relevant to that country's trade policies, the correct answer choice will doubtless focus on it.

Observant test-takers will also notice the conditional reasoning that underlies this argument:

SC = Small Countries

SS = Self-sufficient

NT = National Tariffs
  • Premise: ..... SC .......... SS

    Conclusion: ..... SC .......... NT
To arrive at the conclusion, you need to look for an answer choice that establishes that:
  • SSNT (or the contrapositive NT → SS)
In other words, the correct answer must establish that every country that imposes national tariffs considers itself a self-sufficient country. Answer choice (C) is therefore correct.

Answer choice (A): Since the author does not think that the split would harm the world economy, this answer choice is irrelevant and incorrect. Furthermore, the rights of countries are entirely inconsequential to an argument focusing on economic policy. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): The author does not argue that the division of large countries would strengthen the world economy; her argument is simply that barriers to free trade will not increase as a result of such division. Even if free trade were beneficial to the world economy in general, this answer choice would only strengthen the author's conclusion, not prove it. Remember: the correct answer to a Justify question must prove the conclusion, not merely support it. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice.
If every country that imposes barriers to free trade perceives itself as self-sufficient, then a country that does not see itself as self-sufficient will not erect such barriers. By connecting a nation's perceived self-sufficiency to the probability that it will impose barriers to free trade, this answer choice proves the conclusion. See discussion above.

Answer choice (D): The negative impact of tariffs on the world economy is consistent with the author's conclusion but does not strengthen it, let alone prove it. The author does not think that increasing the number of small countries will lead to increased barriers to free trade. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): If small countries are less self-sufficient than large ones, this would only establish that the small countries are correct in their self-perception. While this may strengthen the author's premise, it provides no definitive support for her conclusion. This answer choice is incorrect.
 avengingangel
  • Posts: 275
  • Joined: Jun 14, 2016
|
#28293
Realistically, when working through a problem similar to this on actual test day, do you recommend diagramming this out? I know the general rule of thumb is that "if you need to, do it." But is a question like this one that the correct answer can be relatively easy to see without diagramming ??
 Nikki Siclunov
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1362
  • Joined: Aug 02, 2011
|
#28352
Angel,

I think you've answered your own question :) Only diagram when you need to. People differ in the extent to which they diagram conditional relationships. Overdiagramming can really slow you down, but underdiagramming can have the same effect, and it can also lower your accuracy. You need to find the right balance for yourself! Personally, I almost always diagram stimuli with 3+ conditional relationships, especially if I notice that they might form a chain. Additionally, I am a lot more likely to diagram stimuli followed by Justify stems, because knowing which elements to connect is often not enough. You need to prephrase the exact nature of that connection in order to avoid getting trapped in a MR/MN.

I'll also diagram MBT and Parallel Reasoning questions where 3 or more conditional relationships are present.

For more tips on when to diagram, check out these blog posts:

LSAT Conditional Reasoning: When To Diagram

Conditional Reasoning on the LSAT: Do You See It Everywhere?

Thanks,
 emma4832
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: Jan 11, 2020
|
#75654
Administrator wrote:Complete Question Explanation
Observant test-takers will also notice the conditional reasoning that underlies this argument:

SC = Small Countries

SS = Self-sufficient

NT = National Tariffs
  • Premise: ..... SC .......... SS

    Conclusion: ..... SC .......... NT
To arrive at the conclusion, you need to look for an answer choice that establishes that:
  • SSNT (or the contrapositive NT → SS)
In other words, the correct answer must establish that every country that imposes national tariffs considers itself a self-sufficient country. Answer choice (C) is therefore correct.
Can you match the conditional pieces that you break out above for premise and conclusion with their respective sentences in the stimulus? I'm having a hard time understanding how the conclusion you break out above matches.
User avatar
 KelseyWoods
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1079
  • Joined: Jun 26, 2013
|
#75712
Hi Emma!

The premise states that "small countries do not think of themselves as economically self-sufficient." To put that in other words, it's basically saying that if you are a small country, then you do not think of yourself as economically self-sufficient. So you can diagram that as:

SC --> SS

The conclusion then states that "such division of large countries does not increase barriers to free trade." According to the first sentence, division of large countries makes them into small countries. Thus, we can say that "division of large countries" basically equals "small countries." Also according to the first sentence, "increased number of national tariffs" is a form of an "increased barrier to free trade." Thus, we can say that "does not increase barriers to free trade" basically equals "does not increase number of national tariffs." So to put the conclusion in other words, it essentially says that if there are small countries, then there would not be an increase in national tariffs. We can diagram that conclusion as:

SC --> NT

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey
 halko.sarah@gmail.com
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: Apr 12, 2021
|
#86697
Hello Kelsey!

I am a bit confused on how you went from
SC → /SS
SC → /NT
to
/SS → /NT (or the contrapositive NT → SS)

How do you know that /SS is sufficient to the necessary /NT? Is it just by the order that the premises/conclusions were stated in the premise? So because we know that SC are not SS, we therefore know that not SS countries are not NT?

Many thanks,
SH
 Rachael Wilkenfeld
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1358
  • Joined: Dec 15, 2011
|
#86724
Hi SH,

The key is we need something to bridge our gap between the premise and the conclusion.

Premise: SC :arrow: ss

Conclusion SC :arrow: nt

That's what we get from the stimulus. This is the same as saying

Premise A :arrow: B

Conclusion A :arrow: C

How do we link something like that? We need to link B :arrow: C.

In our stimulus, that's going from ss :arrow: nt, which is the contrapositive of nt :arrow: ss, our correct answer.

Hope that helps!
 concrottrox11@gmail.com
  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: Dec 07, 2021
|
#92768
How do you know that the first sentence of the stimulus "Some people-tariffs" isn't the premise to be diagrammed out to get the correct answer? Here we assumed the premise was the 2nd sentence, "But small countries-sufficient", I just dont know how I would have arrived at the correct answer because I would have started off by diagramming the first sentence as well and would have gotten confused.

Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you!
 Robert Carroll
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1787
  • Joined: Dec 06, 2013
|
#92811
concrottrox11,

We did not assume that the second sentence was a premise, we recognized that fact. Consider this: does the author agree with "some people" in the first sentence? No; so how could a statement with which the author disagrees be a premise? The first sentence is not part of the author's argument because the author is merely reporting a mistake other people make. A mistake other people make is not going to be the author's conclusion, nor would the author use it as evidence for something else.

Robert Carroll

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.