Akela wrote:
Economist: If the belief were to become widespread that losing one’s job is not a sign of personal shortcomings but instead an effect of impersonal social forces (which is surely correct), there would be growth in the societal demand for more government control of the economy to protect individuals from these forces, just as the government now protects them from military invasion. Such extensive government control of the economy would lead to an economic disaster, however.
The economist’s statements, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?
(A) Increased knowledge of the causes of job loss could lead to economic disaster.
(B) An individual’s belief in his or her own abilities is the only reliable protection against impersonal social forces.
(C) Governments should never interfere with economic forces.
(D) Societal demand for government control of the economy is growing.
(E) In general, people should feel no more responsible for economic disasters than for military invasions.
LSAT
Question stem:
The economist’s statements, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?
The argument gives us economist's statements. We need to take them to be true. The correct option gives us a conclusion.
In such questions, method of elimination proves useful.
Economist's Statements:
- If people came to know that job loss is because of social forces (and not their own shortcomings), they would put pressure on the Govt to control the economy (just the way the Govt controls military to protect them)
- But extensive Govt control of economy will lead to economic disaster.
(A) Increased knowledge of the causes of job loss could lead to economic disaster.
Hold
(B) An individual’s belief in his or her own abilities is the only reliable protection against impersonal social forces.
No. It seems that people believe that Govt control is protection against impersonal social forces. Actually what is protection against impersonal social forces, we don't really know.
(C) Governments should never interfere with economic forces.
No. The argument does not state what Govt should or should not do.
(D) Societal demand for government control of the economy is growing.
No. The author gives a hypothetical situation. "If this happens then societal demand for that will grow..."
We don't know what's actually happening.
(E) In general, people should feel no more responsible for economic disasters than for military invasions.
No. The argument doesn't say whether people should or should not feel responsible for economic disasters or military invasions. It just says that if they came to know X, they will pressurise Govt to do Y and that will lead to Z.
Look at (A) again:
(A) Increased knowledge of the causes of job loss could lead to economic disaster.
If people come to know (increased knowledge ) of the cause of job loss (impersonal social forces), they would pressurise Govt to take control which could lead to economic disaster.
So (A) does make sense.
Answer (A)