LR Question 21 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Some government economists view their home countries…
QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption
CONCLUSION: Government economists need to consider economies outside of their borders. Otherwise their own economies won’t prosper.
REASONING: Economics is not a closed system. Conditions in other countries affect wages and prices in the home economy.
ANALYSIS: This argument successfully proves that foreign economies matter. What it hasn’t shown is if it matters whether economists are aware of this. It could be that economies will succeed even without government economists’ help.
___________
- CORRECT. This establishes that government economists must examine everything that affects their economy (including foreign economies.) Otherwise their own economies will not prosper, as the conclusion argued.
- This actually weakens the argument by showing that its analogy to physics is inappropriate.
- Our main concern isn’t with whether economic theories are accurate. Instead, we’re trying to figure out if economists need to know about foreign economies.
- This still wouldn’t let us establish that it’s important that economists know about it.
- This doesn’t let us conclude that the economy was harmed as a result of the economists’ ignorance.
More Resources for Sufficient Assumption Questions
- Conditional Reasoning Article: Learn about conditional statements.
- LR Diagrams Guide: Learn how to draw LR diagrams.
- Intro to Conditional Reasoning: Learn conditional reasoning basics.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Sufficient Assumption questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers sufficient assumption questions.
I have trouble identifying the core of this argument.
I know it should be “economies are open system, affected by international trade” (premise) – “economists must look beyond borders if they wish their countries to be prosper” (conclusion).
But, logically speaking, isn’t the physicists analogy part of the argument as well. The language “just as physicists… economists must” clearly indicate this analogy is also a premise for the conclusion.
Since this question is asking for sufficient assumption, shouldn’t the answer A include the applicability of that analogy?
Thanks!
You could actually remove the physicist analogy entirely and the argument would be just as strong. It’s just there to illustrate. (i.e. If the final sentence started at “Economists must….”)
It could help to view this as a diagram. We have this evidence:
“Trade affects wages and prices”
The conclusion is: Economists must look beyond borders for economies to prosper
A connects these two by saying that economies can’t prosper unless all factors are examined. Since trade is an outside factor, this means that prosperity depends on trade being examined.