Q7 - Trade negotiator: Increasing economic prosperity

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Principle Support (aka a Strengthen question with a Principle twist)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Premise: More money, more freedom.
Conclusion: It's wrong to adopt trade policies likely to hinder more money in other countries.

Answer Anticipation:
As in all Principle Support questions, we need to find an answer that connects the premise and conclusion. Here, the conclusion talks about what it's wrong to do, but the premise doesn't, so we need an answer that establishes that something is wrong. What has to be wrong for this argument to work? Policies that would hurt freedom in other countries.

Correct Answer:
(D)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Too weak/negation. The correct answer will talk about what's wrong, not what should be done. Also, "at least some" policies doesn't necessarily mean economic/trade policies.

(B) Out of scope. This argument doesn't talk about overall well-being.

(C) Out of scope. The reasons aren't important; just whether the action is right or wrong.

(D) Bingo. This answer connects what we were looking for. If you thought there was detail creep between being wrong and being something you shouldn't do, then good eye! These two terms aren't interchangeable. However, if it's true that we shouldn't do something, we can say that it would be wrong to do it (the reverse isn't true).

(E) Out of scope. The conclusion is about "any other country," not the country that's enacting the policy. This answer choice talks about the effect of trade policies on the country's own inhabitants. This is definitely a tempting trap answer, though, because the language more closely matches the conclusion ("...wrong...") than the correcet answer.

Takeaway/Pattern: Implicit premises - here, "If you shouldn't do something, then it would be wrong to do it" - are becoming increasingly common on the LSAT. These are almost always related to the definition of the word in question.

#officialexplanation