LR Question 25 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Substantial economic growth must be preceded by…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Banning fossil fuels would launch an economic boom.
REASONING:
- Economic growth ➞ technical innovations
- Fossil fuel ban ➞ technical innovations
ANALYSIS: When a flawed reasoning problem uses conditional logic, usually the error will be mixing up a conditional statement. Here, the author says that technical innovations are necessary for economic booms, but then incorrectly mistakes them for sufficient conditions.
If we banned fossil fuels, all we could say is that we have a necessary condition for a boom. But, the economy might tank for other reasons. Perhaps a sudden ban would be too disruptive, for example.
A sidenote: this says economic growth must be preceded by innovations. So if you were to draw this in the order of things happening, it would be “innovations ➞ boom”. But, the arrows don’t show time, they show necessity, and “must” is a necessary indicator. So the statement is properly drawn: “boom ➞ preceded by innovations”
___________
- This answer describes circular reasoning. It will very rarely be correct, as it’s extremely hard to write a circular argument that doesn’t seem impossibly bad.
Example of flaw: Banning fossil fuels will lead to a boom, because bans lead to booms. - This describes an ad hominem flaw, where you insult the speaker. That didn’t happen.
Example of flaw: The people who oppose the fossil fuel ban are evil industrialists who want to destroy the world. So they must be wrong when they say that banning fossil fuels will cause economic destruction. - This….is not a flaw! It describes “making a better argument than you need to”.
Example of situation: You want proof that I can afford this sandwich? Here’s my credit card statement, showing my card is paid off in full, with a credit limit of $30,000. Further, I have a bank statement here showing a balance of $100,000, accessible via my debit card. And here’s a wallet with $2000 in cash, and $10,000 in certified money orders. I have also have this suitcase with 1000 gold sovereigns.
[As I said, not a flaw. This person has definitely shown they can afford a sandwich!] - CORRECT. Yup. Technological innovations are a necessary condition for a boom, not a sufficient condition.
- This didn’t happen. The argument never talked about something “sometimes” preceeding. It said a boom must be preceded by innovations. That happens 100% of the time.
Example of flaw: Sometimes, during a sun-shower, there is sun before it rains. So, sunny days must always lead to sudden rain.
More Resources for Flaw Questions
- Flaw drills: Use these to practice making examples of abstract flaws.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Flaw questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers flaw questions.
Hi, could you also say that A and C are wrong because they bring this notion of ‘evidence’, when I don’t really see an instance of concrete ‘evidence’ in the question itself? I hope I’m making sense.
It makes sense! And I am not sure. I think evidence can be taken as a stand in for reason. But, it is possible evidence must be a fact and not a conditional statement.
I would hesitate to eliminate an answer on this possible distinction when much stronger ones are available. I cannot say I have seen the lsat make this distinction to date.