***
Here's a Logical Reasoning question from the June 2004 LSAT.
Here's a chain of phrases. You'll do this in your head or by underlining on the real test - I've just written it out for instruction's sake.
1st scenario, leader, lower GNP --> 2nd, trailing, higher GDP --> most prefer 2nd
Several things might explain this so, instead of pre-phrasing, we'll jump into the choices:
A) Out of scope. This means their country may eventually overtake the other, but it doesn't explain why the citizens are willing to sacrifice GNP size for rank over Country G.
B) The opposite of what we want. The argument's facts contradict this explanation. If this were true, they'd prefer option 2 because it gives a higher GNP. However, they don't, so this complicates it, rather than explaining it.
C) Out of scope. Perhaps they think GNP doesn't personally affect them, but this doesn't explain their preference. They might care about GNP for their neighbors' benefit or any number of reasons. This choice doesn't explain why they would pick a lower GNP in order to get economic dominance. Simply stating they don't think GNP personally affects them doesn't answer anything.
D) Assumes that a citizen's preference is correlated with desiring national economic health. However, this is not stated in the stimulus.
E) Correct. If citizens did not believe that GNP indicated anything, why would they prefer one GNP to another? They wouldn't. However, in this scenario they do. They prefer a GNP that let's them be economically superior.
Remember:
1) Make a chain of phrases.
2) Eliminate choices that are the opposite of what you want. We did this above because the choices provided no explanation - either they contradicted the argument or they simply restated it. Also reject choices that are out of scope. In this question, such choices discussed an attribute unrelated to the argument.
D does not explain why they would choose scenario 2, if they thought GNP were irrelevent, then there would be no logic whatsover to them choosing scenario 2 over scenario 1 and there would be no question. I say C and D have the same flaw.
ReplyDeletePLUS if you look at the question, scenario one is described as having country F be the world economic leader (same as more economically powerful). Scenario 2 is country G being the world economic leader. So there are two elements to each scenario, GDP and economic supremacy.
Which LSAT did this come from? I'd like to verify the answer myself.
ReplyDeleteLook at the pros and cons of the two choices.
ReplyDeleteChoice 1 pro: economic leader
con: lower GNP
Choice 2 pro: higher GNP
con: not economic leader.
If the people choose 1, you can say that that pro is of greater importance than the pro of 2. Or, that the con of 1 is of less importance than the con of 2.
Either explanation shows that being the economic leader is of more importance than GNP. Answer is E.
What you do NOT know is WHY they do not value GNP as much as economic leadership. Answer D is a hypothesis without a logical base existing in the question.