- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8203
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
Our author opens with his conclusion that unemployment will soon decrease. He then goes on to tell us that significantly increased government spending will lead to this result, and that significantly decreased government spending will also lead to that same result. These are his premises for the claim in the first sentence.
At first this Justify the Conclusion question comes off like a False Dilemma flaw question, and test takers may have braced themselves for that question stem and answer choice as soon as they noticed that the author made the classic mistake of ignoring the possibility that things could stay the same (or at least not change significantly). The government might spend something close to what they have been spending, neither increasing nor decreasing significantly.
In order to justify the conclusion, we must make this dilemma real - we have to eliminate the possibility of spending staying close to current amounts. If spending cannot stay the same or somewhat close to it, then it must go up or down significantly, either of which would lead to the conclusion. That must be our prephrase - spending cannot stay as it is but must change significantly one way or the other.
Answer A: This is the correct answer. A perfect match for our prephrase, eliminating the dilemma and proving that one way or another, unemployment will decrease.
Answer B: There is no need to assume anything about what policies are currently being implemented or contemplated or rejected. All we need to assume is that spending will change significantly in one direction or another.
Answer C: While this answer looks reasonable and makes perfect sense on its own, it doesn't tell us with any certainty that there will be such increased demand for workers, and so this does not prove that unemployment will decrease soon. It only shows us one way in which that might come about.
Answer D: This answer is outside the scope of the argument and does nothing to help justify our conclusion about what will happen soon. It gives additional information about what could happen later, but that's not what we are looking for.
Answer E: This answer looks like a Mistaken Negation of the two conditional claims in the argument, and as such it cannot justify our conclusion.