#20 - Economist: Global recessions can never be prevented

[gingerale]

I chose A on this, and now understand that there was no error in circular reasoning and see why the correct answer is D. However, I was wondering what the stimulus would look like if there was circular reasoning. Would it be something like:

Economists cannot prevent global recessions. Economists, using the best techniques at their disposal, consistently fail to effectively prevent global recessions.

I know a stimulus like this would likely never appear on this LSAT, but I just want to make sure I'm on the right track with spotting out circular reasoning!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi gingerale,

What you've proposed isn't quite a circular argument (in LSAT speak) because the premise you provided doesn't literally mean the same thing as the conclusion. Instead what you've got looks like this to me: They do not have it in their power to do it, because they have always failed to do it. That's not quite a time shift error either, but it's closer to that than circular reasoning.

A very simplistic circular argument starting with the conclusion you used would look like this:

Economists cannot prevent global recessions. That is because nothing economists have within their power enables them to stop global recessions.

My proposed premise there is basically just a rephrasing of the idea that they cannot do it. That's what circular reasoning looks like on the LSAT: a literal (though maybe slightly rephrased) repeat of the conclusion in one of the premises.

I hope this helps!