PT88.S2.Q15 - Many investors are putting money into stocks

thedramallamathedramallama Member
edited October 2019 in September 2019 LSAT 103 karma

When I took this test, I was debating between AC B and C; unfortunately, I picked AC B. Why is AC B incorrect? is it bc we can't assume that investment choices of voters is the same as the people who vote?

Admin note: Minor edit to title to add description

Comments

  • Michael.CincoMichael.Cinco Member Sage ⭐
    edited October 2019 2116 karma

    B is a tricky wrong answer choice.

    In the context of the stimulus voter confidence in the economy tends to favour the incumbent.

    It is not talking about individual voter preferences nor even individual voter investment choices, no it says measured as a whole , the voters confidence in the economy is favorable for incumbent political leaders (who could be of any political stripe or party)

    B talks about voter investment choices (note the stimulis never talks about voter investment choices, rather it speaks of investors choices) and their overall political preferences

    Both voter political preference and investment choices are not touched on by the stimulus.

  • ChloefrazerChloefrazer Member
    110 karma

    In addition to what @"Michael.Cinco" said, for me, I saw two things wrong with (B) which led me to pick (C).

    1st: 'investment choices' and 'voter political preferences' are not mentioned in the stimulus. This should be a first indicator.
    2nd: if we negate (B) to say "the investment choices of voters tend to NOT reflect their political preferences". It does nothing to the argument.

    With (C) however, we know what the economic attitudes of investors are because "clearly, these investors are confident in the economy" because they are putting money into stocks. If we negate (C), then the support between the P and C fall apart because how can we say the party now in power will retain power? We can't, it would wreck the argument.

    If the economic attitudes of investors DO differ from those of voters in general, then we cannot make our argument.

    *Side Note: I am not sure if I am correct about this but NA AC should not be to strong, and the way (C) is worded is subtle enough to provide the support needed. Especially when they say "voters in general". Hopefully I am right about this.

  • Ms NikkiMs Nikki Alum Member
    128 karma

    Here was the way I tackled it:

    Necessary assumption question.

    The argument is flawed because it assumes investors putting money into stocks correlates with voter confidence in economy.

    C tackles this - the economic attitudes of investors do not vary greatly from voters. Maybe they vary slightly, but not enough to prevent the incumbent to get re-elected. If you negate this, and attitudes do greatly vary between investors and voters, it seriously undermines the argument.

    B states the investment choices of voters reflect political preferences. Yet, the argument doesn't state anything about political preferences, or the actual investment choices, other than the choice to invest in the stock market in the first place. Instead, it states that 'voter confidence in economy favors incumbents'. They have confidence in the economy = economic attitude. Confidence in the economy because they invest. This confidence leads to voting that tends to favor incumbents.

    Think about what B would mean. If I invested in an eco friendly company, that would tend to reflect my political preference that is pro-environment. That doesn't seem necessary - what if I invest in an oil company because it will make me money, not because it reflects my political preference? Does that influence our argument at all? This fails the negation test.

    I mean, to draw it out further, you could ask if we always vote for our political preferences in the first place? What if I am a libertarian so my political preferences are no taxes no restrictions on individual rights? But hey, the economy is doing good, my IRA is up, so I will vote for the guy in charge even though he is far from libertarian.

    @Chloefrazer said:

    >

    *Side Note: I am not sure if I am correct about this but NA AC should not be to strong, and the way (C) is worded is subtle enough to provide the support needed. Especially when they say "voters in general". Hopefully I am right about this.

    I think you are on to something but I don't think it is quite right. I have tried to get my thoughts around this for a long time and I hope this explanation helps.

    AC C is a lot stronger than B, which in this case, makes it more correct. I do think the NA questions tend to be less strong than SA, but they cannot be completely neutral, because of the negation test. For example, if an AC said the man is right half the time, the negation test would mean the man is right more or less than 50%. It is not clear which one, so it is unclear how that would affect an argument.

    If we say voter's attitude sometimes differ from the economic attitudes of investors. The negation test would be voter's attitudes never vary. Well that isn't necessary, what if 1 in 1000 vary?

    In this actual question, the greatly is what makes C right. If we negate it, it means the economic attitudes do vary greatly from voters - meaning the voters don't have confidence in the economy overall.

    We also have to make the assumption relevant to the argument. If we say investors usually don't vote, this doesn't affect the argument. Maybe they only vote when the economy is good, and that only happens 1 out of every 10 years. It wouldn't impact this argument.

    If a NA AC is strong, it becomes quite weak under the negation test. If the AC says a person always goes to the movies after dinner, the negation means a person sometimes does not go to the movies after dinner. (There has been at least one time the person has not gone to the movies). Depending on the question, this could destroy an argument or have no effect on it. Maybe it is necessary for the argument that the person always goes to the movies after dinner, so if there is one time where the person doesn't, the argument falls apart.

    The opposite is true. If it starts out weak, it becomes strong. If the AC says sometimes Jerry eats ice cream, the negation test would mean Jerry never eats ice cream. Super restrictive.

    I'm not sure if this helps at all or just makes things more confusing. I do think that weaker answers tend to be right, but not always. I also think there are a lot of weak wrong answers that throw us off.

  • ChloefrazerChloefrazer Member
    edited November 2019 110 karma

    @"Ms Nikki" Thanks for your reply! When you said _"but they cannot be completely neutral, because of the negation test. this really got me thinking. I think sometimes with my AC (not just for NA) sometimes I get flustered and I just fall into traps without double checking. Because in my head I gave myself a rule I must remember that rules with the LSAT are not concrete and I should treat them with a rule of thumb.

    Your line of reasoning really made sense to me thanks.

  • Ms NikkiMs Nikki Alum Member
    128 karma

    @Chloefrazer said:
    @"Ms Nikki" Thanks for your reply! When you said _"but they cannot be completely neutral, because of the negation test. this really got me thinking. I think sometimes with my AC (not just for NA) sometimes I get flustered and I just fall into traps without double checking. Because in my head I gave myself a rule I must remember that rules with the LSAT are not concrete and I should treat them with a rule of thumb.

    Your line of reasoning really made sense to me thanks.

    I am very glad it helped! I didn't know if it was concrete but to know it helped someone made it worth typing it out! Thank you.

Sign In or Register to comment.