Q3 - Legislator: A foreign company is attempting to buy Ferr

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: We shouldn't let a foreign company buy FerroMetal (domestic iron-mining company).
Evidence: We need a dependable supply of iron ore, and if we allow a foreign company to buy FM, we'll have no reason to stop other foreign companies from buying other domestic iron-mining companies. Soon, foreigners will control most of the iron mining, and our hugely important manufacturing sector will be at their mercy, unable to rely on a domestic supply of iron ore.

Answer Anticipation:
If we don't hear ourselves making any apparent objections to the logic, then we think more specifically about how we could make a case for the anti-conclusion (that we should ALLOW this sale).
We know that if we allow the sale, the author thinks we'll eventually have foreign companies controlling most of our iron supply. Is this a bad thing? Obviously, domestic control sounds better, but is there any evidence that foreign control is a bad thing? Are foreign companies who control iron supply generally worse for manufacturers than domestic companies who control iron supply? We could argue that the outcome the author fears isn't necessarily something to fear (and what if there are possible upsides of foreign control?)

Alternatively, we might try to dispute part of the author's story. Once the first foreign company buys FM, the author says we'll have no grounds to stop other foreign companies from buying up other iron suppliers. But then the author then seems to jump to the idea that this slippery slope would soon result in foreigners controlling most of the iron. Well, who's to say other foreign companies are even interested in doing this. Just because we have no grounds to stop it doesn't mean it will inevitably happen?

Correct Answer:
D

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This describes circular reasoning, which is almost never the correct answer. The conclusion is "we should prohibit this sale". Is there a premise that also said "we should prohibit this sale"? No.

(B) This describes a sampling issue. Did the author go from saying "since this is true of iron-mining, it will be true of most industries?" Not at all. The conclusion is only about iron-mining, and the doomsday scenario of the premise is also only about iron ore.

(C) Does the author defend a practice? Not at all. He's concluding "we should PROHIBIT a sale", so I'm not even going to read the second half of this.

(D) Does the author present a chain of possible consequences? Yes. Is it presented as though it's THE ONLY possible chain? Not sure. Keep it and come back. When we come back, we can make peace with the idea that the author DOES seem entirely sure that the chain of events described would definitely transpire. There's no hedging to any of his predictions. It's all "we will have no grounds" / "foreigners will control" / "the end result will be". Since the author is sure it'll go down this way, he thinks this is the only possible chain of events. Since this answer matches the argument and nothing else does, this is the best answer.

(E) Does the author conclude that one event would cause a second event? No. The author concludes "we should prohibit this sale". I would potentially stop reading there. If we read the answer more charitably and let some of the evidence into the conversation, the author is concluding that "selling FM to a foreign company would ultimately cause foreign companies to control most of our iron-mining". Does it make sense to say "foreign companies controlling most of our iron mining" has to come BEFORE we "sell FM to a foreign company"? Not at all. It could come in either sequence, but the author was definitely saying "sell FM" would come first.

Takeaway/Pattern: People (like me) who didn't like the correct answer at first were probably unnerved by the fact that it's really going after the evidence, not the move from evidence to conclusion. But sometimes LSAT "goes after the premises". It seldom happens, but it's fair game when the premises themselves are opinions / predictions. Since these are all predictions (future tense), it's arguable that they will occur. The fact that the author is not measured in her wording and acts like all her speculations are guarantees is something we can fairly critique in someone's rhetoric. And since this chain of events involves intermediate conclusions / assumptions as it goes, it's fair to say we're critiquing her reasoning.

#officialexplanation

[ShawnH822]

I got this question correct, but it was mostly through intuition. The issue I have with this problem is that aren't we always supposed to take the evidence as TRUE? We've separated the conclusion and evidence clearly, but in the evidence the author goes on the rant which is where we find the flaw. The flaw is supposed to be the connection between the evidence and conclusion, however I see the flaw only in the evidence, which is what throws me off. Any help appreciated!