Skip to main contentSkip to solution

The sentences given below, when properly sequenced, would yield a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper sequencing of the order of the sentences and key in the sequence of the numbers as your answer.

  1. It advocated a conservative approach to antitrust enforcement that espouses faith in efficient markets and voiced suspicion regarding the merits of judicial intervention to correct anticompetitive practices.
  2. Many industries have consistently gained market share, the lion's share - without any official concern; the most successful technology companies have grown into veritable titans, on the premise that they advance 'public interest'.
  3. That the new anticompetitive risks posed by tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Amazon, necessitate new legal solutions could be attributed to the dearth of enforcement actions against monopolies and the few cases challenging mergers in the USA.
  4. The criterion of 'consumer welfare standard' and the principle that antitrust law should serve consumer interests and that it should protect competition rather than individual competitors was an antitrust law introduced by, and named after, the 'Chicago school'.

Entered answer:

Solution

✅ Correct Answer: 4123

Step-by-step thought process:

First, identify what each sentence talks about:

  • Sentence 1: Says "It advocated..." -> needs something before it to define what "it" is
  • Sentence 2: Shows consequences -> industries gaining market share without concern
  • Sentence 3: Calls for new solutions -> because current enforcement is weak
  • Sentence 4: Defines what the Chicago school antitrust law is

From passage: "The criterion of 'consumer welfare standard'... was an antitrust law introduced by, and named after, the 'Chicago school'"

The logical flow: Definition -> Approach -> Consequences -> Need for change

Start with sentence 4 (defines the law) -> sentence 1 (explains what "it" advocated) -> sentence 2 (shows results) -> sentence 3 (calls for new solutions)


Why students get confused: They might start with sentence 1 because it sounds like an opening, but "it" needs a reference first. Or they might put sentence 3 first because it mentions current problems.

Elimination process:

  • Any sequence starting with 1 is wrong -> "it" has no reference
  • Any sequence starting with 2 or 3 is wrong -> jumps into consequences/solutions without context
  • Only sequence starting with 4 makes sense -> gives the foundation first

The answer is 4123 -> Definition of Chicago school law -> Its conservative approach -> Resulting market concentration -> Need for new solutions.

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question