PrepTest 142, Section 4, Question 20
Economist: Global recessions can never be prevented, for(25 more words not shown)
The economist's argument is most(6 more words not shown)
- Apresupposes in a(8 more words not shown)
- Bfails to establish(11 more words not shown)
- Ctreats the predictability(19 more words not shown)
- Dfails to address(17 more words not shown)
- Eimplicitly bases an(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Never? Today's prediction failures don't tell us what every future method will accomplish.
The economist gives us a requirement: a recession must be predictable before it can be prevented. Let's accept that. We also know economists consistently fail to predict recessions accurately with the best techniques currently available to them.
But maybe future technology or better mathematical models will improve those techniques. Maybe people with different expertise could offer a method economists haven't used. Those are possibilities, not evidence that prevention will succeed. They expose how much stronger 'can never be prevented' is than the reported failures.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question should identify that jump from a present limitation to a permanent impossibility. If prediction improves, the argument loses its stated basis for ruling out prevention forever. That still wouldn't mean prediction alone guarantees prevention.
Working the answers
- A
The premise doesn't simply repeat 'recessions can never be prevented.' It reports failed predictions and gives a requirement for prevention. Circular reasoning would look like 'This policy is permitted because it is allowed,' with no independent support. Here, the support is different from the conclusion; it just doesn't reach the conclusion's permanent scope.
- B
Whether economists claim to be good at prediction doesn't determine whether they are good at it. They might openly acknowledge their limitations. The argument concerns their actual prediction record, so it doesn't need evidence that they have advertised an ability they lack.
- C
This describes treating prediction as enough to guarantee prevention. The economist doesn't do that. The stated rule only makes prediction a requirement, and the conclusion rules out prevention on the basis of supposed inability to predict. The flaw is in extending current prediction failures indefinitely.
- DCorrect
Better techniques could change what economists can predict. Their failure with today's methods doesn't establish that all future methods will fail. The argument needs to address that possibility before concluding that recessions can never be prevented.
- E
The economist doesn't conclude that an unpredictable recession won't occur. The conclusion is that it can't be prevented. Those are different claims. Moreover, the argument supplies a separate premise connecting prediction with prevention; it doesn't infer its conclusion solely from unpredictability. E doesn't describe the actual leap we identified.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.