QUESTION TYPE: Method of Reasoning
CONCLUSION: The economist says his advice was correct.
REASONING: The economist’s advice prevented the recession.
ANALYSIS: The critic has a silly interpretation of the economist’s prediction. The economist made a conditional prediction. If we don’t do anything, there will be a recession.
Well, the government did something, thanks to the economist’s warning. Since the government did something, the economist prediction no longer applied. But the economist could have been right that there would have been a recession if the government didn’t do anything.
The economist’s method was to point out his prediction’s context and full meaning.
- CORRECT. This is a complex way to phrase a simple idea. Familiarize yourself with the phrase ‘did not obtain’ – many questions have used it. It means that something did not happen.
In this case, the economist said that the economy would do badly if the government did nothing. Since the government did do something, the sufficient condition “did not obtain” and the economist’s prediction no longer applied.
- The economist wasn’t arguing that the economy might still do poorly in the future.
- Which inconsistency? An inconsistency is when your own statements contradict themselves. The critic only said the economist made a bad prediction, and the economy grew.
- A general claim would be “all cars are red”. A counterexample would be “no they aren’t. That car is green”. The critic made no general claim, and the economist made no counterexample.
- The critic only had two factual premises:
i. The economist made a prediction.
ii. The economy grew.
The economist didn’t contradict either fact. Instead, he added context to the first fact. This context proves the critic was incorrect.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly