- Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:38 pm
I think you're on a good path there, gen2871! I agree that we can eliminate certain answer choices here because they do not deal with principles of justice, or with social policy, or both. I wouldn't say that the problem with answer E is that it is out of scope, since unemployment benefits are very much an outgrowth of social policy, but the problem is that the results in that answer are contrary to what the argument put forth, weakening the argument rather than strengthening it. We needed to see two countries that end up with different policies, making the details unpredictable, whereas in E they ended up with the same policies, possibly being predictable! There's a similar problem in answer C, in that the two countries had similar, rather than divergent, results, although it's also unclear whether that has anything to do with principles of justice or with any particular set of social policies.
My point is, be careful about painting with too broad a brush. If you interpret the stimulus too narrowly you run the risk of eliminating a good answer and selecting a bad one. Focus on the structure and conclusion of the argument you want to strengthen, and be prepared to accept any answer that helps make that conclusion more likely. Keep up the good work!
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam