PrepTest 142, Section 4, Question 15
Economist: Many of my colleagues are arguing that(38 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the economist's(7 more words not shown)
- Arelies solely on(4 more words not shown)
- Bconfuses economic growth(4 more words not shown)
- Cpresumes that a(15 more words not shown)
- Dtakes what is(16 more words not shown)
- Econcludes that a(25 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
No need for more growth doesn't mean no reason to lower rates.
I might first question whether a sustainable growth rate rules out wanting improvement. If growth were 1 percent, could someone reasonably want 5 percent? Perhaps, though a higher rate isn't automatically better in every circumstance. Let's grant the economist's claim that no extra stimulation is needed and ask what follows even then.
Could there be another benefit? Suppose lower borrowing costs would make buying a home more affordable for young people. That could supply a reason to consider a rate cut even if the overall growth rate were satisfactory.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question should capture that missing possibility. The economist rejects the colleagues' stated reason, then concludes there is no reason at all. We'd need to eliminate other potential reasons before making that broader claim.
Working the answers
- A
The economist doesn't simply say that an expert opposes cuts and therefore we should oppose them. The argument offers a reason: the economy is already growing sustainably. The problem lies in what that reason establishes, not a reliance solely on someone's authority.
- B
The economist distinguishes growth from a possible way of stimulating it: lower interest rates. The mistake isn't confusing the outcome with the proposed cause. It's treating the lack of need for that outcome as eliminating every reason for the policy.
- CCorrect
Economic growth is the reason the colleagues give, but it needn't be the only reason for lower rates. The home-buying example shows the distinction: someone might favor cheaper borrowing even while agreeing that overall growth needs no stimulation. Rejecting one rationale doesn't establish that the policy has none.
- D
This asks about other ways to stimulate growth. Our objection concerns other reasons to lower rates. Compare the two: 'We won't cut rates, so there's no way to stimulate growth' would overlook alternative methods of producing growth. This argument instead says, 'We don't need more growth, so there's no reason to cut rates.' Different reasons for the same action are what's missing.
- E
The economist doesn't predict that another rate cut would make growth unsustainable. That would be an argument about a harmful consequence of the policy. Here, the economist says additional stimulation isn't needed and then concludes no reason for a cut exists. Don't replace that conclusion with a different objection to lower rates.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.