PrepTest 155, Section 1, Question 14
Jones: A budget deficit is good for the(70 more words not shown)
The strategy Espinosa uses in(6 more words not shown)
- Aprovide an argument(14 more words not shown)
- Bdemonstrate that Jones's(8 more words not shown)
- Coffer empirical evidence(4 more words not shown)
- Dargue that Jones's(13 more words not shown)
- Esuggest that Jones's(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
One consequence of debt might restrain spending. Does that make getting into debt good financial management?
That's what bothers me about Jones's argument. We could question whether a deficit really discourages excessive spending. And even if it does, Jones hasn't weighed that benefit against the burden of having to repay borrowed money.
Espinosa focuses on the second concern. Imagine reaching your credit-card limit. You may spend less afterward because you have run out of room to borrow. But that doesn't make reaching the limit a good financial move. On Espinosa's view, you would have been better off avoiding the debt.
What we’re looking for
Now carry that reasoning back to government. Espinosa uses the personal-finance example to show why Jones's pattern of reasoning is unpersuasive: a bad financial position doesn't become good merely because it discourages additional spending. The strategy question should therefore give us an analogy that exposes the problem in Jones's argument.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The credit-card argument matches Jones's reasoning: reaching a financial limit discourages further spending, so supposedly reaching that limit is good for one's finances. Espinosa presents that analogous argument as clearly mistaken and uses it to challenge Jones's conclusion about government deficits. The comparison does the argumentative work.
- B
Presupposing the conclusion would mean taking the very point at issue for granted. For example: 'A deficit is good because having a deficit is good.' Jones instead gives a separate reason, discouraging excessive spending. Espinosa challenges the adequacy of that reason through an analogy; she doesn't accuse Jones of merely repeating the conclusion.
- C
Empirical evidence would involve observations or data, such as a record of what happened to government finances after deficits. Espinosa presents no such findings. The response asks us to see the weakness in a comparable personal-finance argument.
- D
The credit-card example isn't an allegation about Jones's own finances. Espinosa doesn't say Jones is bankrupt, has reached a credit limit, or manages money badly. A hypothetical comparison with personal borrowing is different from attacking the speaker's personal record.
- E
Espinosa isn't saying Jones took evidence about a narrow group and generalized it too far. She introduces a different setting to test the same reasoning. The target is the inference that a discouragement to further spending makes the existing financial position good, not the size of the group Jones discusses.
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.