LSATMax and COVID-19:
Amid these difficult times, we're lowering the price on all courses.
Free LSAT Practice
LSAT Practice Test
LSAT Practice Test Videos
eBook: The Road to 180
Law School Top 100
LSAT Test Proctor
LSAT Logic Games
Apple App Store
Digital LSAT Simulator
Campus Rep Internship
Fee Waiver Scholarship
LSAT Test Dates
LSAT Message Board
June 2010 LSAT
Consumer advocate: There is no doubt that the government is responsible for the increased cost of gasoline, because ...
on October 29 at 04:20AM
Why is E wrong?
on October 29 at 06:51PM
Let's take a look at (E) and (A).
This is a strengthen with a necessary premise question, so we can use
the negation test on each answer choice. If the negation of the answer
choice makes the argument fall apart, then we know that the original
form of the answer choice is required for the argument, making it the
correct answer choice.
(E) says, "If the government pursues policies that do not increase the
demand for fuel, gasoline prices tend to remain stable."
(E)'s negation would say, "If the government pursues policies that
don't increase the demand for fuel, gas prices may or may not remain
The problem with (E) is that the government's policies in the argument
did increase the demand for fuel, so it's not necessary for us to know
anything about what happens when demand is not increased. Thus, we can
get rid of (E).
(A) says, "The government can bear responsibility for that which it
(A)'s negation would say, "The government cannot bear responsibility
for that which it indirectly causes."
Looking at the negation, if governments cannot be responsible for
something they have indirectly caused, then the argument in the
stimulus falls apart. This means that (A) is a necessary premise, so
it's the correct answer choice.
Hope this helps. Let us know if you have any other questions!
Posting to the forum is only allowed for members with active accounts.