#22 - Consumer advocate: There is no doubt that the

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption—CE. The correct answer choice is (A)

The premises suggest that the government’s policies caused an increase in the demand for fuel, which—in turn—caused the price of gasoline to rise. The consumer advocate concludes that the government is therefore responsible for the increased cost of gasoline.

There is a distinct logical gap in this argument. While the government may have directly caused the increase in consumer demand and therefore indirectly caused the increase in gas prices, this does not automatically imply that the government is responsible for the increase in prices. “Responsibility” is a rogue term in the conclusion, and the assumption of this argument is likely to play a Supporter role by connecting responsibility to the fact that the government indirectly caused gas prices to increase.

Answer Choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice is a classic Supporter Assumption that connects the premises to the conclusion. In order to establish that the government bears responsibility for increased gas prices even though they only indirectly caused the increase in gas prices, the government must be able to bear responsibility for things they indirectly cause. Applying the Assumption Negation Technique, if the government cannot bear responsibility for things they indirectly cause, such a government would not be held responsible for the increase in gas prices.

Answer Choice (B): The information in this answer choice is extraneous to the argument. The rise in gas prices may have been a foreseeable consequence of the government’s policies. Since this answer choice does not necessarily apply to the argument, it is not required for the argument to be true.

Answer Choice (C): This answer choice suggests that an increase in consumer demand for gasoline requires an increase in gasoline prices. While increased consumer demand caused a rise in gasoline prices, the author does not have to assume that the former requires the latter. Causal arguments rarely assume conditional relationships. Furthermore, this answer choice does not attempt to link the “rogue” term in the conclusion to the rest of the argument.

Answer Choice (D): This answer choice strengthens the argument by outlining the government’s obligation to ensure that demand for fuel does not increase excessively. However, the author does not need to assume that the government has this obligation. Even if the government did not have an obligation to prevent excessive increases in the demand for fuel, they might still be responsible for the increase in fuel prices.

Answer Choice (E): The government did pursue policies that increased the demand for fuel, so this answer choice does not apply to the stimulus. Also, the author already established that increased consumer demand caused the increase in fuel prices. The author does not need to assume any additional connection between these two premises.

[lathlee]

Admin edit: due to LSAC policies and copyright law, complete LSAT questions cannot be posted online. However, posting in this section of the forum (Test Explanations) immediately identifies the question, and eliminates the need for the text to be posted. Note: you can quote small sections of the question as needed for your question.


Breakdown:
Pr1: Government polices significantly increased consumers demand for fuel
Pr2: as a result of increasing demand, the price of gasoline has risen steadily.
Conclusion: Government is responsible for increased cost of gasoline.

At a prephrasing stage: I thought of following scenario for Connector and Defender assumption
Connector: Consumer dmand makes most of demand in gas industry’s demand.
Defender: There is no other reason that can influence the consumer demand or prices.

I selected a) c) and e) for the contenders and used negation techniques and C) is tricky because without indicates the activation of unless equation.
Using unless equation:
c) Consumer demand for gasoline can increase only if causing gasoline prices to go up.

Now e): if the government pursues policies that do not increase the demand for fuel, gasoline prices tend to remain stable.

Using negation technique for all three:
a) The government cannot bear responsibility for that which it indirectly causes
C) consumer demand for gasoline can increase only if Not causing gasoline prices to go up
e) if the government pursues policies that do not increase the demand for fuel, gasoline prices does not tend to remain stable.

According to answer sheet) A) is correct.
I thought E) is more directly conflicts with the conclusion of Government has grasp of causing prices to go up in addition, answer choice E) mentions more of themes and elements from the question stem. I do not understand why E is incorrect but A) is correct.
Also, did I use the unless equation correctly for question choice c) ?

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi lathlee,

The Unless Equation is merely a way to translate a conditional statement using words such as unless, except, until, and without into a more manageable if...then construction. Thus, a statement such as "Consumer demand for gasoline cannot increase without causing gasoline prices to increase" simply means, "If consumer demand for gasoline increases, then gasoline prices would increase as well." Using the Unless Equation will not result in the logical negation of the original statement; on the contrary, the point of this equation is to preserve the original conditional relationship conveyed by the use of unless.

To logically negate conditional relationships, you need to show that the sufficient condition can occur even in the absence of the necessary condition. Thus, the logical opposite of a statement such as "Consumer demand for gasoline cannot increase without causing gasoline prices to increase" would be "Consumer demand for gasoline can increase even without causing gasoline prices to increase." For a more in-depth discussion of negating Complex and Compound Statements (incl. conditional statements), please review the blogs below:

Negating conditional statements on the LSAT
Negating Compound and Conditional Statements

To answer your substantive question re: #22, please read the complete question explanation in the next post.
Hope this helps! Let me know.

Thanks,

[yrivers]

Hi,

This problem and the correct answer give me some pause because it's logically inconsistent (or at least the way I'm currently understanding it.)

A) The govt. CAN bear responsibility for that which it indirectly causes. (CAN - that leaves room for no responsibility; how is this the right answer)?

B) The govt. is responsible for some UNFORSEEN consequences of its policies. (Aren't the effects of increasing demand unforseen? Indirect, too, yes. But we never know how markets will behave. So how do we eliminate this?)

C) Consumer demand for gasoline cannot increase without causing gasoline prices to increase. (From the stimulus, I drew Increase in Demand --> Increase in $). So if D guarantees $ (D--> $), isn't this what we see in answer C?

Thanks,
Yaesul

[Steven Palmer]

Hi yrivers,

The missing gap in this question is whether the government can assume responsibility for the gas prices going up. The stimulus proves everything else. It makes sense that the policies increased demand, and that the increase in demand led to the price of gas rise. The only thing that we are not informed of, however, is what it takes to be responsible for something.

Answer Choice (A) does this, by telling us that just because an effect is indirect, like the gas price here, the government can still be held responsible. We need to know just that it CAN be responsible. Listen to the negation: the government canNOT bear responsibility for that which it indirectly causes. That is a great retort to the argument, and weakens it severely.

We cannot pick (B) because we have no idea if the result was unforeseen, so we do not care about whether the responsibility for unforeseen consequences can be put on the government.

(C) is not necessary because we already know that the demand caused the price to rise. The stimulus is not assuming that, but rather proving that. We need to hit the part the stimulus is assuming, which is the responsibility.

Hope this helps!
Steven

[lsattaker202]

Hello rogue elements come up in Justify in this case "responsibility" is a rogue element in an assumption question. A similar strategy can then be used to focus on this rogue element?

[Eric Ockert]

Hi lsattaker!

Yes, rogue elements can come up in really any argument on any question type. However, it is rather common to see correct answers on both Justify and Assumption questions (and Strengthen questions too, for that matter) link the rogue element in the conclusion back to the premises, as you see here.

If the author makes a conclusion about an idea that is never addressed in the premises (a rogue term), then the author must assume that idea is connected to something in the premises. Hence, these kinds of connection fit into an Assumption question context. On the other hand, if your job is to prove (i.e. Justify) a conclusion that involves a rogue term, it is very likely that you must connect that term back to the premises. Therefore, these answers that connect rogue terms also fit well into a Justify the Conclusion context.

Hope that helps!

[Katherine4]

For this question, answer choice B says "Some unforeseen consequences," I understand the importance of the unforeseen aspect however I also see a problem with Some because just because it is responsible for some policy consequences does not ensure it is responsible for THIS policy consequence. Just checking to make sure my understanding is correct

[Adam Tyson]

I think you may be analyzing this question and answer choice more like a Justify the Conclusion question than an Assumption question, Katherine4. We don't need an answer choice that proves that the conclusion is true! Rather, we need an answer choice that must be true if we are to accept the conclusion as true. The "some" is not a problem here! A perfectly acceptable answer could have been "the government is responsible for at least some of the effects that they cause indirectly." The author had to believe that the government is responsible at least some of the time, because he concluded that they are responsible this time (and just once is "some").

To prove this, try the negation technique on my hypothetical answer choice. Negated, that answer becomes "the government is not responsible for any effects that they may have caused indirectly." If that was true, the argument would fall apart completely!

Be careful about the difference between an Assumption answer, which the author must believe is true even though it may have very little impact on the argument, and a Justify the Conclusion answer, which might not be true and which the author need not believe, but if it is true then the conclusion becomes inescapably true.

[spikesjb]

I had a question about (C). I feel like C could be a defender?

If we negate C, and get "Consumer demand for gasoline CAN increase without causing gasoline prices to increase," doesn't that mean that something else could have caused the increase in gasoline prices, which would contradict the conclusion by lending credence to the possibility that the government could be relinquished of the blame for the rise in gasoline prices?

Thanks,
Spikes