nightblade354 wrote:
Trade official: Country X deserves economic retribution for its protectionism. However, it is crucial that we recognize that there are overriding considerations in this case. We should still sell to X the agricultural equipment it ordered: there is high demand in our country for agricultural imports from X.
The argument depends on assuming which one of the following principles?
(A) Agricultural components of international trade are more important than nonagricultural commodities
(B) The ability to keep popular products available domestically is less important than our being able to enter international market
(C) We should never jeopardize the interests of our people to punish a protectionist country
(D) In most cases, punishing a protectionist country should have priority over the interests of our people
(E) We should balance the justice of an action with the consequences for our interests of undertaking that action
Source: LSAT & CR Archive
We'll break down our passage:
1. X deserves economic punishment.
2. (but) there are more important considerations.
3. (therefore) we should sell equipment to X (because) we have high demand for imports from X.
As the logic behind the statements is very clear, we'll first try to infer an answer. This is a Precise approach.
The most obvious assumption behind the above is something like "supplying our high demand is more important than punishing X". Secondary assumptions might include things like "Punishing isn't always the best thing to do" or "supplying high demand is a very important consideration" or similar.
Looking at our answer choices, (C) and (E) are the only relevant options, but (C) is too strong ("never").
(E) is our answer.