LSAT 148 – Section 4 – Question 14

LSAT 148 - Section 4 - Question 14

December 2016

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

Target time: 1:23

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
PT148 S4 Q14	+LR	Sufficient assumption +SA Conditional Reasoning +CondR Rule-Application +RuleApp	A 6% 159 B 5% 154 C 3% 158 D 2% 157 E 85% 164	129 142 154	+Medium	147.694 +SubsectionMedium

Principle: A government should reduce taxes on imports if doing so would financially benefit many consumers in its domestic economy. There is a notable exception, however: it should never reduce import taxes if one or more of its domestic industries would be significantly harmed by the added competition.

Conclusion: The government should not reduce taxes on textile imports.

Summary

The author concludes that the government should not reduce taxes on textile imports. This is based on the following rule:
If one or more of a government’s domestic industries would be significantly harmed by the added competition resulting from reduced import taxes, then a government should not reduce import taxes for that industry.

Missing Connection

We have a rule that allows us to conclude the government shouldn’t reduce import taxes for textiles. To trigger this rule, we want to know that reduced import taxes for the textile industry would significantly harm the domestic textile industry.

Reducing taxes on textile imports would not financially benefit many consumers in the domestic economy.

(A) doesn’t establish that reducing import taxes for textiles would significantly harm the domestic textile industry. Failing to benefit consumers does not constitute significant harm to the domestic textile industry.

Reducing taxes on textile imports would financially benefit some consumers in the domestic economy but would not benefit the domestic textile industry.

(B) doesn’t establish that reducing import taxes for textiles would significantly harm the domestic textile industry. Failing to benefit the domestic textile industry does imply significant harm to the domestic textile industry. (Not helping does not imply hurting.)

The domestic textile industry faces significant competition in many of its export markets.

(C) doesn’t establish that reducing import taxes for textiles would significantly harm the domestic textile industry. The fact there’s “significant competition” does not guarantee significant harm. It’s possible, for example, that the domestic industry can withstand and beat out the competition.

The domestic textile industry and consumers in the domestic economy would benefit less from reductions in taxes on textile imports than they would from other measures.

The comparative level of benefit from tax reductions compared to other measures does not establish that reducing import taxes would significantly harm the domestic textile industry.

The added competition produced by any reduction of taxes on imports would significantly harm the domestic textile industry.

(E) establishes that reducing import taxes would significantly harm the domestic textile industry. Thus, according to the rule, the government should not reduce import taxes for textiles.

LSAT 148 – Section 4 – Question 14

LSAT 148 - Section 4 - Question 14

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 148 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel