QUESTION TEXT: Economist: Unemployment will soon decrease. If total…
QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption
CONCLUSION: Unemployment will soon decrease.
REASONING: There are two scenarios in which unemployment will soon decrease:
1. A significant increase in government spending
2. A significant decrease in government spending.
ANALYSIS: This argument makes a classic LSAT flaw: failing to cover all situations. It’s possible, for example, that government spending will remain unchanged. In that case, we have no idea what will happen to unemployment.
To prove this argument right, we can assume that either a significant increase or a significant decrease will occur.
- CORRECT. See the analysis above. The stimulus laid out two scenarios in which unemployment would go down. This answer ensures that one or the other of those scenarios will trigger.
- So? Intentions can fail. The policies might not affect unemployment.
- Well, that’s nice. But it’s like saying “If unicorns exist, then there is magic in the world”. The problem is, we don’t know if unicorns exist! Likewise, the stimulus doesn’t say that there will be significantly increased demand for workers, so this answer doesn’t tell us what will happen. It just tells us what would happen, if the sufficient condition happens.
- The long run doesn’t matter. The stimulus is only talking about what will happen “soon”. And, this answer doesn’t tell us anything about the short run, so it has no impact.
- This just negates one of the terms in the stimulus. Since we’re trying to prove that unemployment will decrease, this is a supremely unhelpful answer. All it can do is prove when unemployment will not decrease.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions