LSAT 135 – Section 4 – Question 16

LSAT 135 - Section 4 - Question 16

December 2011

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:08

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
PT135 S4 Q16
+LR
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
63%
167
B
3%
158
C
8%
160
D
6%
157
E
19%
161
149
159
168
 +Harder 147.853 +SubsectionMedium

Critic to economist: In yet another of your bumbling forecasts, last year you predicted that this country’s economy would soon go into recession if current economic policies were not changed. Instead, economic growth is even stronger this year.

Economist: There was nothing at all bumbling about my warning. Indeed, it convinced the country’s leaders to change economic policies, which is what prevented a recession.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The economist concludes that his warning that the country’s economy would go into recession if policies weren’t changed was not bumbling. He supports this by saying that his warning led the country’s leaders to change economic policies, which prevented the recession.

Describe Method of Reasoning
The economist’s prediction relied on a condition. He predicted that the economy would go into recession if policies weren’t changed. But the economist shows that this condition wasn’t met— because of his warning, economic policies were changed. As a result, he concludes that his warning wasn’t bumbling and ineffective and suggests that it actually led to the prevention of the recession.

A
indicating that the state of affairs on which the economist’s prediction was conditioned did not obtain
The economist’s prediction was conditioned on economic policies staying the same. By showing that policies were changed (i.e. that “the state of affairs on which [his] prediction was conditioned did not obtain”), he refutes the critic’s claim that his prediction was bumbling.
B
distinguishing between a prediction that has not yet turned out to be correct and one that has turned out to be incorrect
The economist doesn’t suggest that his prediction might still be correct, nor does he distinguish between types of predictions. He’s not concerned with whether his prediction came to pass; instead, he focuses on disproving the claim that his warning was bumbling or pointless.
C
attempting to show that the critic’s statements are mutually inconsistent
The economist refutes the critic’s claim that his warning was bumbling, but he doesn’t point out any inconsistencies within the critic’s argument.
D
offering a particular counterexample to a general claim asserted by the critic
The critic asserts a very specific claim about the economist’s prediction, not a general one. And the economist doesn't respond by offering a counterexample, but shows that the condition on which his prediction depended was not met.
E
offering evidence against one of the critic’s factual premises
The economist implicitly accepts both of the critic’s factual claims (that he predicted a recession if policies weren’t changed and that economic growth was stronger this year). Instead of disputing these claims, he points out that the condition for his prediction wasn’t met.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 135 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply