Role in ArgumentDiff: Medium

Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: A government official explains why fixing food shortages is a lose-lose situation: food shipments hurt local farmers, and money for projects causes prices to skyrocket.

Conclusion: There is no easy or satisfactory way to eliminate the country's chronic food shortages.

Reasoning: Direct food aid destroys the local farming industry, while foreign capital injections lead to inflation that makes food unaffordable.

Analysis: The claim about inflation serves as a premise that supports the main conclusion by showing why one of the two primary solutions is unfeasible. It functions as a 'deal-breaker' for the foreign capital strategy, paralleling the 'deal-breaker' provided for direct food aid. When identifying roles, focus on how this specific fact limits the options available to the government. It is not the main point itself, but rather a necessary piece of evidence used to justify the official's pessimistic outlook.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

6.

The claim that foreign capital funneled into the economy would cause inflation plays which one of the following roles in the government official's argument?

Correct Answer
B
It is a premise that helps show a proposed remedy (foreign capital for development) would have a harmful effect (inflation), thereby supporting the overall conclusion that there is no easy solution.
Upgrade Your Prep

Ready to go beyond free explanations?

LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.

Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal
Explore Perfection Plus for full LSAT prep