PT33 S3, Q21

User avatar
DaRascal
Posts: 1854
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:27 pm

PT33 S3, Q21

Postby DaRascal » Thu May 31, 2012 12:29 am

I'm a little frustrated with this one. I'm going through my Manhattan book trying to get better at LR and the book's reasoning behind the answer seems so dumb to me. I though the answer was clearly E. Can someone explain why it's not E? Because the book's explanation for it not being E sounds dumb.



OK I kind of get it now, but I don't get how international and intranational influences would consitute "Every" significant influence. I can see why the answer I picked was wrong because it simply stated something that must be true based on the stimulus and not something that needed to be assumed, but I still don't get how A is completely correct.


Can someone please explain?

User avatar
cc.celina
Posts: 602
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: PT33 S3, Q21

Postby cc.celina » Thu May 31, 2012 12:43 am

Look at the difference between the initial statement and the conclusion: some economists view countries as immune to influence vs you have to consider influences if your nation is going to prosper. Where did all this "prospering" business come from? The premises don't mention it, therefore, the gap you have to fill is getting from looking at the economy as an interconnected system to using that info to help your nation kick ass. Hence A.

The way I see it, E simply restates the initial premise of the argument: the fact that some ignore the effects of trade is an inference you can make from the statement that some "view their home countries as immune to outside influence." If it's just a restatement of a premise, it's not an assumption, because premises should be treated as true. Furthermore, even if the argument didn't explicitly state that, it's not a SUFFICIENT assumption to reach the conclusion "you must look beyond borders for your nation to prosper." Who cares if some do and some don't? The statement "If you jump off a cliff, you will die" doesn't presuppose that some people DO jump off cliffs, just that if anybody did, they would die.

Does that make any sense?

Edit: based on your addition, it might help to think about necessary vs sufficient: In this case, the argument doesn't depend on this assumption, but this assumption is enough for the conclusion to follow. International trades aren't EVERY significant influence, but they are ONE of them, and if EVERY one has to be understood to prosper, then this one does too.

User avatar
DaRascal
Posts: 1854
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:27 pm

Re: PT33 S3, Q21

Postby DaRascal » Thu May 31, 2012 1:01 am

Hmmm... I kinda skimmed over the necessary and sufficient stuff in the book. I have never diagrammed for LR before so it seemed superfluous but I can kind of understand your reasoning... how that answer acts as a bridge to draw the conclusion. I think if not for the use of the word "every" I would have probably had that answer as a strong contender right away.


Thanks for the help!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”