PrepTest 158, Section 3, Question 3
Newspaper columnist: What caused the current recession is(40 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- ASolving a problem(9 more words not shown)
- BKnowing the cause(15 more words not shown)
- CThe question of(10 more words not shown)
- DOne need not(13 more words not shown)
- ELong before the(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Do we have to know what broke the economy before we can start fixing it? The columnist says no. People are debating what caused the recession, but the columnist thinks finding that cause isn't required to improve things. Maybe the debate concerns interest rates or some other event. The proposed response is to work on a remedy without first settling that debate.
The glasses example makes the idea easier to see. People used corrective lenses successfully before they knew the cause of the vision problem. They could improve the condition without first explaining its origin.
What we’re looking for
Does that establish that the economy works the same way? We might wonder whether an underlying economic problem has to be understood before it can be fixed. But this is a main-conclusion question. We need to identify what the example is supposed to support, whether or not the comparison convinces us: knowing the cause of this recession isn't necessary to improve the economy.
Working the answers
- A
Never? The columnist gives a vision example and draws a conclusion about the current recession. That doesn't amount to a claim that finding a cause is unnecessary for every problem anyone might try to solve. A expands the point far beyond the argument.
- B
This asks whether knowing the cause would be enough to find a solution. The columnist's point is that knowing the cause isn't required before we can improve the economy. Those are different claims.
Think of the two questions: “Can we make progress without knowing the cause?” and “Would knowing the cause guarantee a solution?” The argument answers the first. B addresses the second.
- C
This is the situation the columnist starts with: people disagree about what caused the recession. The columnist then responds that resolving the dispute isn't essential to improving the economy. C gives the setup and leaves out that response.
- DCorrect
To “ascertain” the cause means to find out what caused the recession. D says we need not do that in order to improve the economy. This is exactly the point the glasses example is meant to support.
- E
This gives the supporting example. Corrective lenses worked before the cause of myopia was known, and the columnist uses that case to suggest we can improve the economy without first identifying the recession's cause. The example is a reason offered for the conclusion, not the conclusion itself.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.