LSAT 122 – Section 2 – Question 12

LSAT 122 - Section 2 - Question 12

June 2006

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:51

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT122 S2 Q12
+LR
Argument part +AP
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
3%
155
B
14%
159
C
69%
165
D
2%
154
E
13%
161
142
154
166
 +Harder 146.896 +SubsectionMedium

It is primarily by raising interest rates that central bankers curb inflation, but an increase in interest rates takes up to two years to affect inflation. Accordingly, central bankers usually try to raise interest rates before inflation becomes excessive, at which time inflation is not yet readily apparent either. But unless inflation is readily apparent, interest rate hikes generally will be perceived as needlessly restraining a growing economy. Thus, central bankers’ success in temporarily restraining inflation may make it harder for them to ward off future inflation without incurring the public’s wrath.

Summarize Argument
Central bankers’ success in curbing inflation may make it harder for them to prevent future inflation without making the public angry. Why?
Inflation is restrained by raising interest rates.
These increases take two years to affect inflation.
Therefore, bankers try to increase rates before inflation gets bad. (sub-conclusion)
When inflation is not yet bad, it is not readily apparent.
If inflation is not yet bad, rate increases are seen as hurting the economy.

Identify Argument Part
This is one premise that sets up the explanation for why successful inflation control makes it harder to continue to control it without incurring public anger. Knowing that inflation is restrained by raising interest rates is essential to the argument.

A
It is presented as a complete explanation of the fact that central bankers’ success in temporarily restraining inflation may make it harder for them to ward off future inflation without incurring the public’s wrath.
This is not the complete explanation. It is one premise within the argument that explains why in combination with other premises.
B
It is a description of a phenomenon for which the claim that an increase in interest rates takes up to two years to affect inflation is offered as an explanation.
This is just a premise about inflation control. It is not explained or supported by other parts of the argument.
C
It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion that central bankers’ success in temporarily restraining inflation may make it harder for them to ward off future inflation without incurring the public’s wrath.
This is accurate - it is a premise that supports this main conclusion.
D
It is a conclusion for which the statement that an increase in interest rates takes up to two years to affect inflation is offered as support.
It is not the conclusion, it is a premise. The claim receives no support.
E
It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion that unless inflation is readily apparent, interest rate hikes generally will be perceived as needlessly restraining a growing economy.
This is not the conclusion that the answer choice supports. The conclusion cited here is just another premise.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 122 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply