LSAT 155 – Section 1 – Question 14

LSAT 155 - Section 1 - Question 14

November 2019

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

Target time: 0:50

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
PT155 S1 Q14	+LR +Exp	Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method Analogy +An	A 85% 162 B 6% 152 C 3% 152 D 1% 149 E 4% 156	126 138 151	+Easier	147.037 +SubsectionMedium

Jones: A budget deficit is good for the country’s finances; it discourages excessive government spending.

Espinosa: That’s like saying that reaching the credit limit on your credit cards is a good thing for your finances because it discourages you from spending excessively. While it’s true that reaching your credit limit will likely discourage you from spending excessively, it’s still poor financial management. You should have stayed out of debt in the first place. The same goes for governments.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Jones concludes that a budget deficit is good for the country’s finances. This is because he believes a budget deficit discourage excessive government spending.
Espinosa criticizes Jones’s argument by using analogy. In the analogous argument, someone might argue that reaching the credit limit on credit cards is a good thing because it discourages you from spending excessively. Espinosa points out that this argument doesn’t make sense, because reaching the credit card limit shows bad financial management. Espinosa points out that just as someone should avoid getting into debt, governments should also try to avoid debt.

Describe Method of Reasoning

Espinosa uses an analogous argument to show that Jones’s argument is not persuasive.

provide an argument that is analogous to the one given by Jones but that is clearly fallacious

Espinosa provides a flawed analogous argument (that reaching credit limit is good because it discourages spending) to show that Jones’s argument is similarly flawed.

demonstrate that Jones’s position presupposes what it sets out to prove

(B) describes circular reasoning. Espinosa does not accuse Jones’s argument of restating its conclusion as one of its premises.

offer empirical evidence that undermines Jones’s conclusion

Espinosa does not offer any empirical evidence. (Empirical evidence is based on things that are actually observed or measured.)

argue that Jones’s reasoning about finances is questionable because of Jones’s poor management of personal finances

Espinosa does not comment on Jones’s own management of personal finances.

suggest that Jones’s conclusion is more general than is warranted by the evidence Jones presents

Espinosa does not suggest that the reason Jones’s conclusion is flawed is that it is too general.

This is a Method of Reasoning question.

We’re asked to describe Espinosa’s argument, how he responds to Jones. Jones speaks first. She argues that a budget deficit is good for the country’s finances because it discourages excessive government spending.

Espinosa responds. He says, “That’s like saying…” Okay, pause. At this point, we already know that he’s arguing by analogy. And that’s already enough to hunt out Correct Answer Choice (A). It’s the only one that describes Espinosa’s argument as an argument by analogy.

Okay, so what is it like? It’s like arguing that reaching the credit limit is good for your finances because it discourages excessive spending. He concedes that reaching the credit limit will likely discourage excessive spending. But reaching the credit limit is still a poor financial decision. That never should have happened in the first place. The same goes for the government, meaning the government never should have had a budget deficit to begin with.

(A) accurately describes Espinosa’s argument. His argument about reaching the credit limit is clearly fallacious. He uses that to show that Jones’s argument is analogously fallacious.

Answer Choice (B) says Espinosa demonstrates that Jones’s argument is circular. That it begs the question. That it presupposes what it sets out to prove. That’s not right. Jones’s argument isn’t circular. The premise and the conclusion are different claims. Espinosa doesn’t mistake Jones’s argument for a circular one. Here’s a circular argument that Jones could have made: A budget deficit is good for the country’s finances because spending in excess of revenues improves a nation’s financial situation.

Answer Choice (C) says Espinosa offers empirical evidence that undermines Jones’s conclusion. No, he doesn’t. Here’s what empirical evidence might look like: Back in 2010, France experienced a budget deficit which caused it to default on its treasury bond interest payments. That shattered international confidence in the French government, which resulted in a decade of economic decline. That’s empirical evidence that a budget deficit isn’t good for a country's finances.

Answer Choice (D) says Espinosa launched a source attack against Jones. Come on. Espinosa knows better than that. Whether Jones’s personal finances are managed well is irrelevant to Jones’s argument. Espinosa doesn’t go there.

Answer Choice (E) says Espinosa suggests that Jones overgeneralized. That’s not right. Jones’s argument didn’t overgeneralize. And Espinosa certainly didn’t claim that it did. Here’s what Jones might have argued that would have been an overgeneralization: Back in 2010, France experienced a budget deficit which caused it to impose austerity measures. Those policies resulted in a decade of economic boom that the country has never seen before. Therefore, a budget deficit is good for a country’s finances. Jones is a bit too eager. Just because it worked out for France doesn’t mean it’s generally good. That’s overgeneralization.

LSAT 155 – Section 1 – Question 14

LSAT 155 - Section 1 - Question 14

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 155 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel