Q15

[johnsdouglass]

I did not find any of these answers to be fully explicative of the main point of the passage.

In answer choice E, the phrase "failed to account for" is used. When I first read this choice I didn't like it because I understood the phrase to be synonymous with failing to recognize the existence of. I thought this was wrong because the first sentence of the last paragraph talks about economists trying to bring increasing returns into the mainstream, so obviously there were economists that were aware of its existence.

If, however, I take "failed to account for" to mean "failed to explain" then the answer choice is much better as portrayed in the last two sentences of the passage.

Is my understanding that I should have taken "failed to account for" to mean "failed to explain" correct? I know I have seen this phrase on other practice LSATs, so if I see it again can I always take it to have this meaning?

[tommywallach]

Hey Johns,

Simply put, that is the definition of the idiom. Here's the dictionary on it:

account for: provide or serve as a satisfactory explanation or reason for: he was brought before the Board to account for his behavior.

Hope that helps!

-t

[judaydaday]

Can someone please help me with the scale for this passage? It seems like the first and second half of this passage revolve around different main points. Or are the first three paragraphs just the context?

[rinagoldfield]

Hi judaydaday,

Thanks for your post. You’re right that this passage isn’t easily scale-able. Here’s how I’d look at it:

Side 1:

Invisible Hand
“market always gets it right”
-Adam Smith, 2 centuries of economists
-easier to model


Side 2:

Pin Factory
Scale increases returns
-Also Adam smith
-later economists ignored until 70s, when they figured out how to model.


That last bit – which correlates nicely with answer choice (E) – does function as a pinnacle of the passage. The author takes the reader on a journey through these opposing economic forces and concludes by saying that “FINALLY” economists have found a way to describe the Pin Factory.

You’re right that (E) isn’t a complete picture, but it is the best of the bunch. Main Point questions in particular should be attacked through a process of elimination – your task is to find the answer that most captures the main point.

(A) is extreme – always? This answer choice is also unsupported. Most economists of the past two centuries have focused on decreasing returns to scale.
(B) Is also extreme – primarily? The invisible hand also has some intrinsic conceptual value.
(C) Is unsupported. The passage does not compare the modeling of the Pin Factory and to that of the Invisible Hand.
(D) Is too narrow. That’s an itty-bitty fact from the first paragraph.

Main takeaways: Process of elimination. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Hope that helps.