PrepTest 135, Section 4, Question 16
Critic to economist: In yet another of your(56 more words not shown)
The economist responds to the(2 more words not shown)
- Aindicating that the(13 more words not shown)
- Bdistinguishing between a(19 more words not shown)
- Cattempting to show(7 more words not shown)
- Doffering a particular(9 more words not shown)
- Eoffering evidence against(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Has enough time passed? 'Soon' in an economic forecast might mean more than a year. That's one possible response to the critic's claim that this year's growth disproves last year's warning.
There's another question too: did the country actually leave its economic policies unchanged? The economist's prediction depended on that condition. A forecast of recession if nothing changes isn't a forecast of recession no matter what anyone does.
The economist takes the second route. The leaders changed their policies, the economist says, because they heeded the warning. The absence of a recession therefore doesn't show that the conditional forecast was wrong.
Imagine warning, 'If I forget to buy flowers, my partner will be disappointed.' Then I remember to buy them and my partner is happy. That isn't evidence against my warning about forgetting. The situation I warned about never occurred.
What we’re looking for
Now describe the economist's actual response. It concerns the condition behind the prediction, not how long we should wait for the prediction to come true.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Translate the abstract wording piece by piece. The 'state of affairs' was economic policies remaining unchanged. The prediction was 'conditioned' on that situation: if the policies didn't change, recession would follow. 'Did not obtain' means that situation didn't occur. The policies changed, so the critic can't use the outcome to refute the prediction about unchanged policies.
- B
This resembles my initial thought about timing: perhaps the prediction hasn't had enough time to come true. But the economist doesn't make that defense. The reply says the policies changed and prevented the recession, not that the same recession is still coming a little later.
- C
The economist doesn't show that two of the critic's statements can't both be true. The economist can have made the forecast last year and the economy can be growing this year. The reply explains why those two facts don't establish a failed warning.
- D
No separate counterexample is offered to defeat a general claim. The economist explains the condition attached to this particular forecast. The flower example helps us understand that response, but it isn't an example the economist gives the critic.
- E
The economist doesn't deny making the forecast or deny the stronger economic growth. Instead, the economist adds that policy changed and challenges what the critic infers from the admitted facts. That defense doesn't prove the warning was correct; it shows why the critic hasn't disproved it in the way claimed.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.