Q23 - Politician: We should impose a tariff

[mrudula_2005]

What's so wrong with A and B?

This is what I think...
Is (A) off because the politician is not actually putting his own country's economic interest first since if he wanted to, he would recommend the farmland being converted to more lucrative industrial uses instead?

Is (B) off because it's too extreme by saying "always" instead of a milder tone like "sometimes"? Even then, it would still be off, right? Because if it is the interests of producers that should always take precedence, that would presumably have to include the producers in foreign countries too, which would result in a policy directly counter to the argument, right? Would (B) be correct (assuming C is not there) if it stated "The interests of domestic producers should take precedence over those of domestic consumers"?

Are these the reasons for discounting A and B? Just looking for confirmation and additional thoughts/reasons. Thanks!

[aileenann]

Ok, let's dig into these.

(A) is wrong for at least the reason you cite, but I'd problematize that a little more. I would say we don't even necessarily know what the economic well-being of the country is because that isn't defined for us in this argument. Remember, we don't want to bring in our outside knowledge!

(B) is wrong because it doesn't say which producers and which consumers. This is not limited to fruit and it also doesn't make the national/international distinction made in the original argument. (B) would be more attractive if you modified the "always" and added the "domestic" but even then I am not sure we can definitively comment on what are the interests of the consumers. Here, there are at least 2 - the interest in cheap food and the interest in keeping domestic fruit growers (the latter also an interest of the producers).

Thanks for your question. What do you think of the above?

[pinkdatura]

Hi, aileenann. I am wondering why D is out? Is it because citizen is a larger category of farmers while in this stimulus only farmers are discussed? And also if the core of this stimulus is about unique way of life rather than econ interests of farmers?
Also exact which part of the stimulus is economic efficiency mentioned in C and E?
Thx

[aileenann]

(D) is out because we don't know enough about the interests of the country's citizens vs. the interest of citizens of other countries. For one thing, we may think that lower fruit prices would be in the interest of this country's citizens, but we don't know that for sure. We can't *assume* that lower fruit prices mean best interests of our citizens.

(E) is out because we don't know anything about efficiency one way or another (and if we bring in outside knowledge about efficiency, we'd probably think the government is going the wrong way on this one). Always be careful not to assume things just because they look likely to be true based on your real world knowledge. Again, lower fruit prices might seem efficient, but the LSAT doesn't want us to use what we know from the outside.

[hunter108]

Reviving this.

aileenann, I'm still confused. Here's why:

(D): I don't see it as an assumption that lower fruit prices hurt our citizens. The argument tells us that domestic farmers will be put out of business by cheap fruit, and is it not reasonable to assume that being put out of business is harmful to them?


(E): I'm very confused by your response here, since the correct answer also contains the phrase 'economic efficiency'. If we can simply discard answer choices using the concept of economic efficiency, then why would we discard (E) on that basis, and not (C)?

[bbirdwell]

Let's just start from the top by isolating the core of the argument.

Conclusion:
We should make imported fruit cost more than domestic fruit.
(note that imported means "from another country")

Premises:
1. If we don't, growers in other countries will put domestic growers out of business.
2. When domestic growers go out of business, farmland will become industrial, and a unique way of life will vanish.

Next, let's be clear about our task here. We want an answer choice that validates a key assumption in the argument via a general rule (principle). In other words, we want a rule makes it so that when we "plug into it" the evidence above, we are guaranteed to arrive at the conclusion above. That's how these questions work.

So the argument essentially looks like this to me:
We should do X, cause if we don't, Y.

What's being assumed here? That Y is a bad thing!
Imagine I told you: "We should sing happy birthday, cause if we don't, we'll get free ice cream." Would you want to sing? Which is to say, is my conclusion a good one?

Or if i said "We should sing happy birthday, cause if we don't we'll be hung." Now is my conclusion a good one?

Think about what assumptions are required by either argument, regardless of whether you think the conclusion is good or bad.

In order for the first example's conclusion to be VALID, we must assume that we don't want free ice cream. (stupid, i know)

In order for the second example to be valid, we must assume that we don't want to be hung. (word!)

Applied to the argument at hand, in order to VALIDATE the conclusion, we must assume that losing this unique way of life is a bad thing.

So, we want a choice that strengthens the argument, and more or less says "losing a unique way of life is a bad thing," in general terms.

(A) Nope! In fact, we know nothing about overall economic interest of "our country" vs others -- just a small snippet about farms and farmland.

(B) Nope! In fact, in the argument, the domestic producers get the shaft.

(C) Yes! "social concerns" = "way of life," and "economic efficiency" = "more lucrative" use of the land. (we may not see this right off, in which case we should leave it b/c of the notion of "social concerns" and move on to the others...)

(D) Nope! This rule does nothing to help the given argument. Think about it. If I tell you "(D)," and then I say "If we don't put a tariff on apples, we'll lose a unique way of life," do you immediately conclude "Well, we better put a tariff on apples, then!" No! Nothing about the interests of this country's citizens vs that county's citizens is part of it.

(E) Out. See (D). This does nothing to help us get our conclusion from the given evidence. Knowing that this is our task here is essential to eliminating, as you can see.

Does that help?

[interestedintacos]

The test makers gave us more than you mentioned to help us:

2. When domestic growers go out of business, farmland will become industrial, and a unique way of life will vanish.

Not exactly. It also says the industrial uses will = MORE money. If you pick up on this you can quickly see why choices like A and D are wrong. The argument suggests that the economic result from the lack of tariffs will be GOOD; thus it should become very clear that the arguer, in saying that we SHOULD do the tariffs (despite the better economic result presumably coming from the lack of them), is putting something else (the way of life issue) ahead of the economic issues.

I think it was important to realize that the text says the industrial stuff will = more money. That's the ticket to blasting through this one.

[slimjimsquinn]

C) "Social concerns should sometimes take precedence over economic efficiency"

I see that social concerns = loss of unique way of life, but what is economic efficiency? I can't see economic efficiency equaling preventing domestic farmers from losing business.

That's a national interest issue, not one of economic efficiency (which is kinda universal). Does that make sense?

[Jasonzhang]

C) "Social concerns should sometimes take precedence over economic efficiency"

I see that social concerns = loss of unique way of life, but what is economic efficiency? I can't see economic efficiency equaling preventing domestic farmers from losing business.

That's a national interest issue, not one of economic efficiency (which is kinda universal). Does that make sense?

economic efficiency here is referred to as "more lucrative industrial uses"

So, it's basically a trade-off between "a unique way of life" and "more lucrative industrial uses", the argument favors the former.

[lauren8765]

I've narrowed it down to C and E. But even after reading the posts above, I can't see how C is correct- it seems a lot more vague than option E.

Can someone please spell out why C is correct and E is not, in really simple language? (Without saying general things like 'E doesn't conform' and not explaining why).

Thanks!

[JeremyK460]

Approach:
In this question, the stimulus conforms to the answer. I’m looking for an answer that represents the politician’s argument/recommendation. I read the argument and I summarize (in the form of a rule/principle) what the politician/author is saying.

Breakdown:
Growers from other countries who can grow better fruit more cheaply will put our growers out of business. The result of this is the loss of farmlands, which is a unique way of life.

The politician believes we should tax imported fruit so domestic fruit is cheaper.

Analysis:
An external thing should be made more expensive than an internal thing in order to protect the internal interests.

The argument is pretty particular so I’m having trouble putting it in general terms.

Answer Choices:
(A) The politician is thinking internal over external, but not in the world of ‘economics’ as this answer states. The politician isn’t interested in money, according to the third premise. It’s asserted that a more lucrative situation would replace farmland, which the politician believes is a unique way of life.

(B) I get where this is coming from, because the politician wants to raise the price for domestic fruit which seems pretty shitty for the consumer, but I don’t know how the consumer feels or if their ‘interests’ are being trivialized in this respect. It’s possible that imported fruit and domestic fruit were at the same price before the tariff. Raising the price of the imported fruit wouldn’t really get in the way of customer interest in fruit. Consumers still have the same price option they had before the tariff.

(C) This feels more accurate. The politician is concerned about losing a unique way of life. This is expressed in the third premise. It’s stated that no tariff will put domestic farms out of business, and those farms will be converted to more lucrative situations; but the more lucrative situation would be getting rid of a unique way of life, so fuck that!

(D) I can see where this could be implied, because the politician is seemingly disincentivizing another country from exporting their fruit over, but I don’t know the economical extent to which the other country depends on fruit exportation.

(E) Maybe this is true, but a comparison between government and free markets on the basis of ‘more economic efficiency’ isn’t really relevant to the stimulus.

Overview:
This stimulus is interesting because the last premise seems to present some irony. I’m expecting ‘no tariff imposition’ to lead to a situation that isn’t beneficial, but it instead leads to a situation that is economically beneficial. The irony is that the politician recommends doing ‘X’ because not doing ‘X’ leads to ‘something beneficial’ and ‘something not beneficial’.

The loss of a unique way of life seems to be outbalanced by the fact that more money would be made; but that’s the point the politician is trying to make. It would be easier if the author wrote it like…

Although not imposing a tariff leads to a more lucrative option, it leads to something unique vanishing; and it’s more important that a unique way of life doesn’t vanish. Therefore, we should impose a tariff.

The politician shies away from a more lucrative option. This move denotes the politician’s idea of ‘people over money’. Also, a politician is writing this; they’re probably virtue signaling!

[BarryM800]

I respectfully disagree with one instructor to categorize this question as a Strengthen question. The question stem asks us to find a principle in the answer choices that the politician's recommendation most closely conforms to. To me, this sounds more like "if the stimulus is true, which one of the following answer choices is true" language. So I categorize this question as a must be true or inference question. But, anyway, I wanted to approach this type of "principle conform" questions from a different angle.

On the face of it, the argument provides two premises: (1) not imposing tariff on imported fruit will put domestic fruit growers out of business; and (2) despite more lucrative industrial uses of farmland resulting from domestic fruit growers going out of business, a unique way of life (growing fruit) will vanish. Based upon premise (1), both (A) and (D) seem attractive, as they kinda talks about similar idea of putting domestic interest first.

However, the two premises are not parallel to each other. The fact that they are connected by "This will result in ...," with "this" referring to premise (1), indicates that the relationship between them is actually progressive. In other words, premise (2) is built upon premise (1), which essentially makes premise (2) an intermediate conclusion. So premise (1) is not directly supporting the final conclusion.

When the question stem asks about "the politician's recommendation," which is the final conclusion, the only relevant reasoning is that between the intermediate conclusion and the final conclusion, which is about the "vanishing of a unique way of life" piece. In this sense, premise (1) should be discounted in this question. Any thoughts? Thanks!

[Misti Duvall]

I respectfully disagree with one instructor to categorize this question as a Strengthen question. The question stem asks us to find a principle in the answer choices that the politician's recommendation most closely conforms to. To me, this sounds more like "if the stimulus is true, which one of the following answer choices is true" language. So I categorize this question as a must be true or inference question. But, anyway, I wanted to approach this type of "principle conform" questions from a different angle.

On the face of it, the argument provides two premises: (1) not imposing tariff on imported fruit will put domestic fruit growers out of business; and (2) despite more lucrative industrial uses of farmland resulting from domestic fruit growers going out of business, a unique way of life (growing fruit) will vanish. Based upon premise (1), both (A) and (D) seem attractive, as they kinda talks about similar idea of putting domestic interest first.

However, the two premises are not parallel to each other. The fact that they are connected by "This will result in ...," with "this" referring to premise (1), indicates that the relationship between them is actually progressive. In other words, premise (2) is built upon premise (1), which essentially makes premise (2) an intermediate conclusion. So premise (1) is not directly supporting the final conclusion.

When the question stem asks about "the politician's recommendation," which is the final conclusion, the only relevant reasoning is that between the intermediate conclusion and the final conclusion, which is about the "vanishing of a unique way of life" piece. In this sense, premise (1) should be discounted in this question. Any thoughts? Thanks!

This question is definitely a principle question, technically a principle example. If the argument is conforming to a principle, it means there's a principle underlying the argument (i.e., being assumed by the argument). Boiling the argument down to its basics and then looking for an answer that matches is a good approach, cause once you boil it down you're looking for the underlying assumption.

And I agree that, for this question, the premise is less important, at least in terms of the biggest jump the argument makes between the intermediate conclusion and the main conclusion. It's hard to know that's going to be the case in advance, though, so I think it's still helpful to note the entire argument upfront.

Hope this helps.