PT24.S2.Q10 - the economy seems to be

Henry An

I'm quite confused on this question. I was down to answer choice A and E, and ultimately chose A. I understand why E is correct, but I still cannot grasp why A is not.

I thought that the stimulus could be viewed in relations to not only "conclusion/premise," but also "phenomenon/hypothesis." The passage is telling us why "consumers are buying more durable goods" because they expect economic growth. And with this, the economist further explains/hypothesizes that "the economy seems to be heading out of recession. "

1. Consumers are buying more durable goods than before (Premise/Phenomenon)
2. Expect economic growth in the near future (Sub-conclusion)
3. The economy seems to be heading out of recession (Conclusion/Hypothesis)

To my knowledge, providing any hypothesis to a phenomenon would be trying to explain the phenomenon, which is exactly what answer choice A states. For instance, if you see a phenomenon that whatever you drop from a building falls to the ground, by hypothesizing that there seems to be a force (gravity) that makes items drop, this would be providing an explanation to the phenomenon. Any help would be great!

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-2-question-10/

Sami

Hey : )

So it's not that "Consumers are buying more durable goods than before" is or is not a phenomena. It's the way the author uses this statement in his argument that determines the role this statement plays.

If our author, as answer choice "A" says, was a phenomena the author was trying to explain, his argument may have looked like this:
Recent figures show consumers are buying more durable goods than before. This indicates that consumers expect economic growth in the near future and therefore means economy seems to be heading out of recession. (something like this).
* The way this argument above is structured indicates the author's focus is in trying to explain this phenomena that recent figures present.

But that's not how the author is using this statement.
He is first writing down his conclusion. And then backs it up with "Recent figures" or evidence that is then used to support a premise that the author wants to use to support his conclusion.
*The way this argument is structured shows that the author wants to use recent figures to back up a statement which is a premise for his conclusion.

*So with "role" questions I would ask the following question. What is the author trying to do? Is he trying to explain a phenomena or prove his conclusion by using data/phenomena to back it up.

I hope that helped.

Henry An

@Sami Thanks for your reply! I actually had that line of thought, about how the argument was structured, specifically in regards to the ordering of sentences (how the conclusion was stated first). However, I felt that this kind of thinking would not be useful in a general sense in tackling argument questions because the LSAT writers usually (and intentionally) put the conclusion in the middle, end, or the beginning in efforts to hide the argument's organization and to make the questions more difficult. In light of this, I felt that just by placing the conclusion in the beginning (or anywhere else) didn't really affect the argument to the degree that it places the focus to someplace else in the argument. To my knowledge, the economist could have easily placed his conclusion in the middle, and it wouldn't change his argument's structure (in a logical organization standpoint). This was my train of thinking when reviewing the question... Any feedback from you would be great! Thanks in advance!

Sami

Hey,

So its not so much about the order or structure of the "sentences" but the structure of the "argument". Which are two different things. By showing you how a hypothesis "argument" would be structured vs how this argument in our stimulus was structured, I was trying to show you how the focus of the two argument would be different.

Do you think in our stimulus for this question the author is trying to explain a hypothesis or is the author trying to use this data to prove his conclusion? In other words, is the author trying to back up his statement that "The economy seems to be heading out of recession" or is the author trying to explain " Consumers are buying more durable goods than before".

For hint*: take a look at the premise. The sentence "Consumers are buying more durable goods than before", which you have labeled as the phenomena is in support or indicates something for the premise of the argument, which is in turn supporting our conclusion. That's the structure or the argument and therefore indicates that the sentence about our consumers buying more durable goods is to support our premise and therefore our conclusion. It is not what the argument is trying to explain.
Also, is the focus of the argument the "behavior of the consumers" or the "economic recession". What noun is the author trying to really make an argument about?

Henry An

@Sami I think I'm getting hold of the essence of the question now. Thanks for all your help!