LR Drill Set 14, Question 5
The coming economic recovery will surely be strong.(52 more words not shown)
The main conclusion of the(4 more words not shown)
- Aby comparing the(16 more words not shown)
- Bthrough an assessment(15 more words not shown)
- Cthrough projection from(16 more words not shown)
- Dthrough an assessment(20 more words not shown)
- Eby attacking the(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why should we be so sure the recovery will be strong when the experts disagree?
My first reaction is to question the investment-company economists' incentives. Their employers might benefit when people feel confident enough to invest. Could that give them a reason to make optimistic forecasts? That possibility doesn't establish dishonesty, but it makes me hesitate before trusting their prediction over the academics'.
The author sees the incentives differently. Investment-company economists risk losing their jobs, while academic economists have tenure. On that view, the prospect of getting fired gives the company economists a reason to get their forecasts right. Job security might let the academics be less careful. I can see the argument even though I can also imagine pressure to promote investments pushing the other way.
What we’re looking for
The question asks how the author supports the main conclusion. We need to describe what the argument does, rather than settle which economists we personally trust. My prediction is that it appeals to a difference in job security to favor one group's forecast. That is the reason offered for choosing a side in this disagreement.
Working the answers
- A
The author isn't counting experts on each side. “Most” tells us that a majority of the investment-company economists expect a strong recovery. It doesn't tell us how that group's size compares with the number of academics who disagree. An argument that ten experts beat five would be a different argument.
- B
Whose risks? The passage discusses economists risking their jobs when they make forecasts. B describes the risks of believing a forecast—for example, an investor losing money after relying on an optimistic prediction. Those consequences for the person following the advice aren't the basis of the argument.
- C
The author doesn't say investment companies will prosper and then extend that prediction to the entire economy. The companies matter because of the employment conditions of their economists. Nothing here predicts the companies' own economic performance.
- DCorrect
This is a broader description of our job-security prediction. The author uses the threat of losing a job to treat one group of experts as more dependable than the other. Those favored experts agree with the conclusion that the recovery will be strong; the academics disagree. So the support rests on a comparison of the experts' reliability. D doesn't have to repeat “job security” to capture the role that detail plays.
- E
Having tenure isn't a character defect. The author questions how employment circumstances might affect the care economists put into their forecasts. That differs from calling the academics dishonest or bad people. A criticism of someone's incentives or circumstances is not automatically an attack on that person's character.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.