LSAT 103 – Section 3 – Question 16

LSAT 103 - Section 3 - Question 16

September 1998

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:02

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT103 S3 Q16	+LR	Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method Rule-Application +RuleApp	A 1% 155 B 13% 162 C 4% 166 D 76% 168 E 7% 163	140 152 165	+Medium	148.537 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

The recently negotiated North American Free Trade Agreement among Canada, Mexico, and the United States is misnamed, because it would not result in truly free trade. Adam Smith, the economist who first articulated the principles of free trade, held that any obstacle placed in the way of the free movement of goods, investment, or labor would defeat free trade. So since under the agreement workers would be restricted by national boundaries from seeking the best conditions they could find, the resulting obstruction of the flow of trade would, from a free-trade perspective, be harmful.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that the North American Free Trade Agreement is misnamed. As evidence, the author points to the principles outlined by Adam Smith which describe any obstacle placed in the way of free movement of goods, investment, or labor defeats free trade. Moreover, since under the agreement workers would be restricted by national boundaries, the North American Free Trade Agreement would not truly result in free trade.

Describe Method of Reasoning

The author criticizes the North American Free Trade Agreement as being misnamed because of the restrictions the agreement would place on workers. He does this by appealing to economist Adam Smith, whose principles of free trade are in contrast with what the agreement entails.

ruling out alternatives

The author does not rule out any alternatives. The author’s argument is limited specifically to the North American Free Trade Agreement, no other agreements or acts are mentioned.

using a term in two different senses

The author concludes that the North American Free Trade Agreement is misnamed, but the author himself does not use the term “free trade” in two different senses.

citing a nonrepresentative instance

The author does not cite a nonrepresentative instance. The author’s argument is restricted specifically to the North American Free Trade Agreement.

appealing to a relevant authority

The authority is the economist Adam Smith. He is a relevant authority because he is the economist who first articulated the principles of free trade.

responding to a different issue from the one posed

The author does not respond to a different issue. The issue is the misnaming of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the author never strays away from addressing this issue.

LSAT 103 – Section 3 – Question 16

LSAT 103 - Section 3 - Question 16

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 103 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel