Mainstream economic theory holds that manufacturers, in deciding what kinds of products to manufacture and what form ...

Skylar October 5, 2019

@Zariyah-Hodge Happy to help!

First, let's breakdown the argument. We are told that mainstream economic theory holds that manufacturers respond to consumer desire. However, anyone who watches TV knows that manufacturers manipulate and create consumer demand. Since mainstream economists watch TV, this implies that they know manufacturers manipulate demand, despite their theory claiming otherwise. Therefore, the argument concludes that mainstream economists' motives for advancing this theory is something other than unbiased scientific truth.

This can be broken down as:
Premise: Mainstream economic theory says manufacturers respond to consumer demand.
Premise: Anyone who watches TV knows manufacturers manipulate and create consumer demand.
Premise: Mainstream economists watch TV.
Conclusion: Mainstream economists have a motive for promoting the theory other than disinterested concern for scientific truth.

This is an argument structure question that asks what role the claim that manufacturers manipulate and create demand plays in the overall argument. From our breakdown, we see that it is the first premise offered in support of the conclusion. This is synonymous to it being "one of the claims on which the conclusion is based," so (A) is the correct answer.

Answer choice (E) is incorrect because the statement in question plays an active and direct role in providing information that allows the conclusion to be drawn. The term "supplementary background information" suggests that the statement provides unnecessary context, which is untrue. The conclusion could not be properly drawn without the claim that manufacturers manipulate and create consumer demand, which means that this claim is a premise on which the concluision is based, not merely background information.

Does this make sense? Please reach out with any additional questions!

Zariyah-Hodge October 6, 2019

Oh! Okay this makes sense! So supplementary background information can mean unnecessary to the argument?

Skylar October 12, 2019

@Zariyah-Hodge Yes! "Supplementary" is often used to mean "additional," which implies that whatever it's describing is not absolutely essential.

Zariyah-Hodge October 21, 2019

Okay thank you so much for your help!

0tas> July 6, 2020

Another question - what is the meaning of the term "background information" on the LSAT? I think knowing this meaning would better help me to understand why E is wrong in this question.