22. This LSAT assumption question contains the phrase "think of themselves" in the premise, which keys us off to the assumption:

 

	Countries do not think of themselves as economically self-sufficent g Those countries do not impose national tariffs or other blocks to free trade
	Countries do impose national tariffs or other blocks to free trade g Those countries do think of themselves as economically self-sufficent

 

By transforming the "All" in (C) into an "If...then" statement, we find the contrapositive of the assumption that we identified.

(A) is irrelevant. The Economist is not concerned with "the right", but rather with any possible increased blocks to free trade.

(B) is a guess as to what the Economist's next sentence might be. However, the Economist does not provide an opinion as to whether or not the world economy would be weakened or strengthened -- the argument's scope is limited to the barriers to free trade.

(D) refers to "strong evidence". The Economist's argument does not depend on whether or not there is strong evidence to support what "some people" in the first sentence argue. Try negating (D): There is NOT strong evidence. This has no effect on the author's argument, and thus is not a required assumption.

(E) provides a comparison of economic self-sufficiency of small and large countries. More or less is irrelevant, as is the actuality of economic self-sufficiency; the author's premise is whether countries "think of themselves" as economically self-sufficient, not whether those countries actually are economically self-sufficient.

 

23. For this LSAT error question, the Counselor's argument works this way:

 

	P: X (Comparing Oneself to Others) almost invariably causes Y (Negative Effects -- Self-Disparagement and or Dismissive of Others).
	_________________________________________
	C: NOT X (NOT Comparing Oneself to Others) most likely causes NOT Y (NO Negative Effects, which necessarily results in Positive Effects, which are Self-Acceptance and/or Accepting of Others)

 

The Counselor's argument has two problems. First, s/he looks at the polar opposite of Self-Disparagement rather than the logical opposite. The polar opposite of Self-Disparagement is Self-Acceptance. The logical opposite of Self-Disparagement is not Self-Disparagement, which might be Self-Acceptance, but might simply be neither. The Counselor makes the same mistake with Dismissive of Others and Accepting of Others. Second, the author assumes that X (comparing oneself to others) is the only way to Y (self-disparagement and/or being dismissive of others), and (D) is the correct choice. If it's possible that something other than X can cause Y, then the argument is severely weakened.

(A) is incorrect because the author does not provide an either/or argument. Indeed, in the conclusion the author combines the two as "comparing themselves to others".

(B) is incorrect because the Counselor does not take another step and provide advice as to which course (comparing or not comparing oneself to others) one should follow. The counselor does not conclude that one should never compare oneself to others. Additionally, if one does gain beneficial benefits from comparing oneself to others that one would not obtain from not comparing oneself to others, then those benefits would not be self-acceptance and/or acceptance of others.

(C) seems tempting but because the author does take this for granted. However, this is not an error. If one is dismissive of others, then, in fact, one cannot be accepting of others -- it's impossible to have both. Likewise, if one is self-disparaging, then one cannot be self-accepting.

(E) is incorrect because of the word "whenever", whereas the Counselor states "almost invariably".

 

24. Within this LSAT parallel error argument, the author trips up over the word "most". The structure works this way: Most X's (CC employees) are Y's (programmers). Most Y's are Z's (receive excellent salaries). Thus, at least one X is a Z. The problem is that perhaps all off CC's programmers are not among the "most" programmers who receive excellent salaries. Remember to focus on the reasoning structure of the argument, not the paragraph structure. Thus, do not consider an element the X factor just because it appears first.

Choice (A) works this way: Most X's (Molly's classmates) are Y's (gardeners). Most Y's are Z's (have patience). Thus, at least one X is a Z. This choice parallels and is correct.

(B) contains "could" rather than "must".

(C) comes close but the "who is a gardener" makes it wrong. The choice works this way: Most X's (Molly's classmates) are Y's (gardeners). Most Y's are Z's (have patience). Thus, at least one X who is also a Y is a Z.

(D) works this way: Most W's (Molly's classmates) who are also X's (gardeners) are Y's (females). Most Y's are Z's (have patience). Thus, at least one W who is also a X is a Z.

(E) works this way: Most X's (Molly's classmates) who are Y's (females). Most X's are Z's (gardeners with a great deal of patience). Thus, at least one X is both a Y and a Z. There is no flaw within (E), and so it must be incorrect. Suppose Molly had 100 classmates (X's). The passage states that "most" are female. Suppose that 51 (the lowest number out of 100 that qualifies as "most") of the classmates are female. Suppose that 51 of the classmates are gardeners with a great deal of patience. If so, then at least one must be both female and a gardener with a great deal of patience.