Q12 - Politician: The huge amounts of money

[sunhwa2881]

Can you please go over this question? Thank you.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

For long, multi-faceted arguments such as this one, it is often helpful to think the arguments in reverse -- starting with the conclusion, then what directly leads to the conclusion, and so on. For long arguments such as this one, it is very common that the most crucial information comes at the end.

The author's main point is that the regulatory burden has become excessive.

What's the evidence that directly leads to that?

Recent data shows oil industry profits are not highest among all industries.

Why is that important?

These oil industries need profits to make risky investments that must be made.

Okay, now that we've separated out the critical components, let's evaluate the reasoning. What's the most significant flaw with this core?

Certainly there are some secondary assumptions the author is making, but flaw questions tend to have answers that relate to the most significant gap or flaw.

In this case, the gap in the argument is that the author considers the profits not significant enough to make risky investments, and the only reasoning given is that the profits are not highest of all industries.

That makes no sense. An analogous argument would be: "Ted doesn't have enough money to buy a new car. He does not make the most money of everyone in the world."

(A) addresses this flaw in the core, and is therefore correct.

(B) is not done in the argument. The character of the oil companies is not discussed.

(C) is attractive because it represents a very common flaw. However, this argument doesn't have a causation flaw as a main issue.

(D) incorrectly represents the text and makes a distinction where one is not necessary.

(E) does not represent what is happening in the argument.