Principle: A government should reduce taxes on imports if doing so wou

Great question. I would say (B) and (E) are both definitely true. So which is better and more direct? Let's focus on Exception and Conclusion.

Exception: it should never reduce import taxes if one or more of its domestic industries would be significantly harmed by the added competition.

Conclusion: The government should not reduce taxes on textile imports.

(B) Reducing taxes on textile imports would financially benefit some consumers in the domestic economy
- Potentially true, because some consumers might be able to purchase textiles for lower prices because of less tax.
(B) but would not benefit the domestic textile industry.
- True, because the domestic textile industry would have more competition.

(E) The added competition produced by any reduction of taxes on imports would significantly harm the domestic textile industry.

Answer (E) almost exactly matches the Exception. E is better.

Hope this helps someone.

E is the only answer that MUST be true. B could be true, but we dont really know for sure.

Isn't option E a bit vague though as it doesn't really specify the reduction of tax on textile import ?

Principle: A government should reduce taxes on imports if doing so would financially benefit many consumers in its domestic economy. There is a notable exception, however: it should never reduce import taxes if one or more of its domestic industries would be significantly harmed by the added competition.
Conclusion: The government should not reduce taxes on textile imports.

Benefit Customer -> -tax
~(benefit DI) -> ~(-tax) —(by added competition)
-> ~(-tax)

Which one of the following is a statement from which the conclusion can be properly drawn using the principle?



There is no connection between C & DI. (A) is out.

This does not have to be true. It could be case that both get the benefits. (B) is out.

We are only concerned about Import markets. Export markets are out of the context. (C) is out.

There is no such comparison in the reasoning. (D) is out.

Rogue information,Added Competition, from premise presents in this answer choice. In addition, it is the construction of contrapositive of the conclusion. Also, It's the last choice.

(E) is our correct answer.

Principle: A government should reduce taxes on imports if doing so would financially benefit many consumers in its domestic economy. There is a notable exception, however: it should never reduce import taxes if one or more of its domestic industries would be significantly harmed by the added competition.
Conclusion: The government should not reduce taxes on textile imports.

Which one of the following is a statement from which the conclusion can be properly drawn using the principle?


(A) Reducing taxes on textile imports would not financially benefit many consumers in the domestic economy. - If this is true then does textile is only industry or it constitute a majority of the domestic industry which we don't know.

(B) Reducing taxes on textile imports would financially benefit some consumers in the domestic economy but would not benefit the domestic textile industry. - We are not concerned of benefit of industry but customers.

(C) The domestic textile industry faces significant competition in many of its export markets. - Irrelevant.

(D) The domestic textile industry and consumers in the domestic economy would benefit less from reductions in taxes on textile imports than they would from other measures. - Less or not we can't say. However, what are the other measures. Not relevant.

(E) The added competition produced by any reduction of taxes on imports would significantly harm the domestic textile industry. - This definitely supports the conclusion. Whether it supports consumers in the domestic economy we can't know. Also, the conclusion covers an exception which talks about the harm that might be caused if govt. reduces import taxes. The conclusion limits the scope which this options nicely resolves.

Answer E.

Can someone explain option B using negation method.
Thank you!

This was exactly my thought, because it jumped out as the best candidate immediately.
But then, since this is not OG or not even MGMAT, me here being paranoid looking for silly trap answers lol.

"any reduction" could mean any reduction, let's say, on electronic appliances, which somehow in a roundabout way hurts the domestic textile industry.

maybe the original LSAT question does specify, i don't know