Loading...
Protectionist trade restrictions harm large segments of society for the benefit of a smaller segment. For example, every time the steel industry asks for tariffs on steel imports from foreign countries, someone correctly points out that if that wish were granted, it would harm the United States auto industry and other steel users, not to mention consumers. Protectionist trade restrictions serve particular interests and only rarely also the general welfare. But the U.S. Constitution requires the government to serve the general welfare. It follows that _______________.
Which of the following best completes the passage?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Protectionist trade restrictions harm large segments of society for the benefit of a smaller segment. |
|
| For example, every time the steel industry asks for tariffs on steel imports from foreign countries, someone correctly points out that if that wish were granted, it would harm the United States auto industry and other steel users, not to mention consumers. |
|
| Protectionist trade restrictions serve particular interests and only rarely also the general welfare. |
|
| But the U.S. Constitution requires the government to serve the general welfare. |
|
| It follows that ____________. |
|
The argument moves from a general claim about trade restrictions harming society, to a specific example with steel tariffs, back to a broader principle about serving particular interests versus general welfare, then introduces a constitutional requirement that conflicts with this pattern, leading to a logical conclusion we need to complete.
The conclusion (which we need to fill in) should logically connect the constitutional requirement to serve general welfare with the established fact that protectionist trade restrictions rarely serve general welfare - likely concluding that such restrictions are unconstitutional or shouldn't be enacted.
This follows a classic 'conflict between principle and practice' structure: establish what actually happens (trade restrictions harm most people), show this conflicts with what should happen (Constitution requires serving general welfare), then conclude what must follow from this conflict (trade restrictions should be avoided/are problematic).
Logically Completes - We need to find a conclusion that logically follows from the premises about trade restrictions harming the general welfare while the Constitution requires serving the general welfare.
The argument makes precise claims about frequency (trade restrictions 'only rarely' serve general welfare), scope (harm 'large segments' vs benefit 'smaller segment'), and constitutional requirements (government 'must' serve general welfare).
Since this is a Logically Completes question, we need to connect the dots between what we know: (1) protectionist trade restrictions usually serve particular interests rather than general welfare, (2) the Constitution requires government to serve general welfare. The logical conclusion should address this conflict - either the government shouldn't implement such restrictions, or there's a constitutional problem with them.
This goes too far by saying 'trade restrictions of any kind are unconstitutional.' The passage specifically discusses protectionist trade restrictions and notes they 'only rarely' serve general welfare, implying some might be constitutional. Additionally, the passage doesn't address all types of trade restrictions - it focuses specifically on protectionist ones. This choice is overly broad and absolute.
This shifts focus to whether domestic industries are helped by foreign competition, which is completely tangential to the argument. The passage is about the constitutional requirement to serve general welfare versus the reality that protectionist restrictions usually don't. Whether industries benefit from competition doesn't logically follow from the constitutional conflict established in the passage.
This correctly connects the constitutional requirement with the established facts about protectionist trade restrictions. Since the passage shows these restrictions 'only rarely' serve general welfare but the Constitution requires government to serve general welfare, it logically follows that such restrictions are 'usually incompatible' with constitutional requirements. The word 'usually' perfectly mirrors the frequency language used earlier in the passage.
This reverses the logical flow by discussing what's generally compatible rather than what's incompatible. While this might be true as a general statement, it doesn't follow from the specific conflict the passage sets up between protectionist restrictions and constitutional requirements. The passage builds toward showing incompatibility, not compatibility.
This directly contradicts the entire argument. The passage establishes that protectionist trade restrictions harm large segments of society and only rarely serve general welfare, so concluding that general welfare requires such restrictions would be completely illogical and opposite to everything presented.