Self-study
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. ████████ ████████ ██████ ██ ████ ████████ ████ █████
██████████ █████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ████████ ███████ ██ █████████ ███ █████████ ███████ ██ ██████ ████████ █████████ █████ ██ ████ █████████ █ ██████████
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.
16.
The economist responds to the ██████ ██
a
indicating that the █████ ██ ███████ ██ █████ ███ ███████████ ██████████ ███ ███████████ ███ ███ ██████
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 ██████████ ████ ███ ███ ███ ██████ ███ ██ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ██ ██ █████████
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 ████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ███ ████████ ████████████
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 ██████████████ ██ █ ███████ █████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████
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 ███ ██ ███ ████████ ███████ ████████
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.