In some countries, national planners have attempted to address the pro

Question

In some countries, national planners have attempted to address the problems resulting from increasing urbanization by reducing migration from rural areas. But some economists have suggested an alternative approach. These economists assert that planners could solve these problems effectively by trading goods or services produced by a predominantly urban population in order to obtain the agricultural products that were previously produced domestically.

Which one of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the economists’ assertion?

(A) Government subsidies to urban manufacturers can ease the problems caused by the migration of people from rural to urban areas.

(B) All problems that have economic causes must have economic solutions.

(C) A scarcity of agricultural products is a central element of many problems created by urbanization.

(D) Problems associated with migration to cities from rural areas are primarily due to trade imbalances between countries.

(E) Free trade policies can exacerbate the problems caused by increasing urbanization.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

The single most powerful technique I know for dealing with the Logical Reasoning is to start every response with “the argument doesn’t make sense because _______________.” You need to fill in this blank. Ninety percent of the arguments you’ll see on the Logical Reasoning are bullshit. So, as you read, you must argue. See if you can come up with one reason, or multiple reasons, why the logic fails to make sense.

Here, the economists have concluded that planners could solve “the problems resulting from increasing urbanization” by “trading goods or services… to obtain agricultural products.” Does this make any sense? I don’t think it does. The argument doesn’t make sense because we aren’t told that the problems resulting from urbanization (which could be crime, pollution, hunger, traffic, who knows what) can be solved by trading for potatoes. If the problems resulting from urbanization were all food-related, then the logic might make sense. But this isn’t stated by the argument, it’s simply a giant assumption.

We’re asked to strengthen the argument. One very good way to strengthen an argument is to turn an assumption into a fact. Imagine you’re a defense attorney at a murder trial. Would you want to simply  assume  that your client, the defendant, attended his LSAT class on the night of the crime? Or would you go get testimony from his classmates, and videotape from the school, that  proves  that the defendant was in class while the crime was taking place? Your defense would be much stronger with factual evidence than it would with an assumption, right? Right.

Here, the author has assumed that agricultural products can solve the problems of urbanization. If that were  fact , rather than an assumption, the author’s position would be quite a bit stronger. So an answer like, “All problems of urbanization can be solved with agricultural products,” would be a great answer. Let’s see what we’ve got.

A) The argument simply wasn’t about government subsidies. I don’t see how this can strengthen the argument.

B) Even if this is true, it wouldn’t prove that trading for agricultural goods will solve the problems of urbanization. This answer doesn’t connect strongly enough to the conclusion.

C) Okay, this is similar to what we predicted. It’s a little weaker than we would have liked, since it only says that a shortage of agricultural products is related to many (perhaps not all) problems of urbanization. Still, this answer does strengthen the connection between trading for potatoes and solving urban problems. So we have to like this one.

D) Trade between countries is irrelevant. The argument was about trading urban goods for rural agricultural goods.

E) This answer would only seem to weaken the argument, and we were looking for a strengthener. So this one is out.

I really didn’t like A, B, or D, or E. So C, which we were able to make a case for, is our answer.

yashikaaggarwal · Answer

(A) Government subsidies to urban manufacturers can ease the problems caused by the migration of people from rural to urban areas. (Introducing subsidies to urban manufacturers in the option, which is out of context) (Eliminate )

(B) All problems that have economic causes must have economic solutions. (All problems with all solutions. Quite a broad range. Plus, it doesn't talk about migration) (Eliminate)

(C) A scarcity of agricultural products is a central element of many problems created by urbanization. (The statement talks about trading products, maybe scarcity is causing that urbanisation problem) (let's keep this)

(D) Problems associated with migration to cities from rural areas are primarily due to trade imbalances between countries. (Statement talks about rural and urban areas, not countries) (Eliminate)

(E) Free trade policies can exacerbate the problems caused by increasing urbanization. (Statement talks about exchanging goods. Whether it should be done through free trade, is not mentioned) (Eliminate)

Answer is C

Posted from my mobile device

agrasan · Answer

Hi  KarishmaB   MartyMurray   DmitryFarber

On option D, apart from  "countries"  angle in the explanation given above, can we say that option D is wrong because it is telling us about the cause of problem rather than supporting the solution proposed by economists for a given problem?

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

No, if we're trying to propose a solution to a problem, then the cause is relevant. If we can reduce the cause, we can presumably reduce the problem. Also, the mention of trade between countries is not the problem. Some of the folks writing explanations above didn't catch that the proposal in the argument is about trading with other countries. We can tell it is about that because of the mention of "products that were previously produced domestically." In this context, "domestically" means "within the country," so the proposal is about trading with other countries.

The problem with D is that the argument has nothing to do with  imbalances  in trade, so knowing that these imbalances are the main source of problems from urbanization does not tell us whether the proposed solution would solve any of the problems.

In some countries, national planners have attempted to address the pro

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In some countries, national planners have attempted to address the pro

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards