Journalist: To reconcile the need for profits sufficient to support ne

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

The conclusion of the argument is, “The practice of selling a drug at a higher price in a rich country than in a poor country is unjustified.” Regardless of whatever political leanings I may have, if I want to do well on the LSAT I need to argue with this reasoning. So: Oh yeah? That’s a bold claim. Why is it unjustified? Well, says the journalist, maybe a poor country might have a middle class that could afford to pay a higher price for the drug than the poor people in a rich country. And if people can afford it, then they should pay.

That sounds like bullshit to me. I mean my sense of social justice probably agrees, but it’s not logically necessary. To argue, I could say, “Isn’t it impossible to charge every party the exact maximum price they would be able to pay? If we have to screw some poor people in the U.S., and let a few middle class Mexicans get a good deal, isn’t it worth it in order to make the drug affordable for all the poor Mexicans?”

We’re asked to “help to justify” the journalist’s reasoning, which means we need to switch teams and strengthen the argument. The journalist seems to think it’s unjustified to screw any poor people in the U.S., or unjustified to let any middle class Mexicans get a good deal, so a good answer would be something like, “It’s unjustified to cause poor people in a rich country to be unable to afford a drug,” or, “It’s unjustified to cause middle class people in a poor country to get a bargain on a drug.” Either one of those would strengthen the journalist’s conclusion that “the practice is unjustified.”

A) If you picked this answer, you’re doing it wrong. Don’t let your own personal biases affect your LSAT judgment! I would agree with you that sick people deserve a break, but that’s not the point of the argument. The point of the argument is, “Poor people in a rich country shouldn’t get a worse deal than middle class people in a poor country.” This answer doesn’t do anything to strengthen that idea.

B) Nah. Again, I agree that this proposition is true in real life. But like A, it does not support the point of the argument, so it can’t be the answer.

C) Okay, this is at least in the vein of what the journalist was saying. The journalist does think that we should evaluate the individual needs of the poor in the U.S. rather than considering every American to be rich since they live in a rich society. We can pick this answer if we can eliminate D and E.

D) No, access for a whole country vs. another whole country wasn’t the issue. The issue was, again, poor people in a rich country vs. middle class people in a poor country.

E) Distribution of wealth was not part of the argument. No way.

Our answer is C, because it supports the journalist’s conclusion that we shouldn’t screw poor people in the U.S. to give middle-class Mexicans a break.­