#16 - Critic to economist: In yet another of your

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning—SN. The correct answer choice is (A)

Your task in this Method of Reasoning question is to the select the answer that provides the best
description of the economist’s response to the critic. The critic labels the economist’s last year’s
forecast as bumbling, alleging that although the economist predicted the country would soon go into
recession if the current economic policies were not changed, economic growth was even stronger this
year.

The economist responds by stating his forecast was not bumbling, and that it in fact convinced the
country’s leaders to change economic policies, preventing a recession.

Your prephrase is that the economist responds to the critic by saying the absence of the predicted
recession is not evidence of his “bumbling,” because the recession was averted when the economic
policies were changed as a result of his prediction. The incorrect answer choices will describe some
other method of reasoning.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The critic’s statement itself provided the
conditional relationship ascribed to the economist in his prior year’s prediction: if the policies did not
change, then the country would soon go into a recession. The economist’s response informs you that
the government’s policies did change, to which this choice refers as “the state of affairs on which the
economist’s prediction was conditioned did not obtain.”

Answer choice (B): The economist does not indicate that the evidence is still out on his prediction.
Instead, he said the predicted recession was avoided by a policy change.

Answer choice (C): The economist did not point out internal inconsistencies within the critic’s
statement.

Answer choice (D): The only claim by the critic that could be labeled “general” was his description
of the economist’s “bumbling forecasts.” Even assuming that could be the general claim described in
this choice, the economist did not offer a counterexample to this claim. Rather, he simply denied that
last year’s forecast was bumbling.

Answer choice (E): This choice describes the opposite of the tack taken by the economist, who
acknowledged the asserted content of his prediction and added that the sufficient condition cited in
his predicted scenario did not occur.

[ataraxia10]

Hi, I find the wording of A extremely confusing. I instinctively chose A but switched to E because I got so confused with the wording of A and figured E was a better explanation. Is E incorrect because the critic's premise is actually false according to the economist and therefore, is not factual?

[George George]

@ataraxia10

You're not alone on this one. Oftentimes, LSAT students will reject what confuses them, instead of keeping it as a Contender; and then, in a panic, they'll pick the last answer (E) just because everything else sounded bad. To avoid this, sometimes it's best to leave a 50/50 Q and come back to it later (say, at the "5 minute warning" mark) and see if you can spot what you're not seeing in the moment.

For (A), the "state of affairs" refers to "if economic policies were not changed" (from the Critic's argument). That is what "did not obtain" - because the polices were changed. So, (A) sounds convoluted (classic LSAT!), but hits all the right notes.

However, (E), tempting as it is, is incorrect, because nowhere does the Critic actually say that the policies weren't changed (only "if current policies were not changed"). This is not factual. In fact, the only factual statement the Critic makes is that "economic growth is even stronger this year," and the Economist seems to agree with that. So, there is no evidence against "one of the critic's factual premises," and we have to dismiss (E) as incorrect.

[ataraxia10]

Thanks, George!

[bonnie_a]

What exactly is "factual premises"? Does it differ from premises that are used to support the conclusion of an argument? I chose E at first because I thought the economist tried to refute the critic's idea of his forecast being bumbling and so the economist was providing an example that runs counter to that point. I get why A is the correct answer but just need some further clarification on what factual premises actually mean. Thank you!

[Ryan Twomey]

Hey Bonnie,

A factual premise is just a premise that is a fact in support of our conclusion. I will give you an example argument:

It is cloudy outside, therefore it is going to rain.

My factual premise is that it is cloudy outside. Most of the premises on the LSAT are in the format of factual premises. We are supposed to accept these premises as true facts. That is not to say that all premises on the LSAT are true facts, but most of them are. Premises stated as opinions or studies test takers are allowed to question more. In my example argument, the issue with my argument was not my factual premise that it is cloudy outside, but my assuming that cloudiness always equates to rain.

In method of reasoning and flaw questions where there are two speakers involved, it is very important to identify and differentiate between the premises and the conclusion. The only premise the critic offered was the last sentence: stating the economy grew even stronger. Identifying this as the sole premise is the key to eliminating E. The economist did not dispute this premise offered by the critic. Automatically making answer choice E incorrect.

I hope this helps, and I wish you all of the luck in your studies.

Best,
Ryan

[bonnie_a]

Thank you for explaining this in detail! I now get why E is incorrect but I would like to ask one last question on factual premises.

The only factual premise in the argument of the critic is: "Instead, economic growth is even stronger this year." When that is indeed true, can't the part that says "last year you predicted that this country's economy would soon go into recession if current economic policies were not changed" also be a factual premise? I'm assuming the only reason why it can't be a factual premise is because it comes after "in yet another of ..." (and thus in the same sentence). I just want to check if I have understood this correctly! Thank you so much.

[Robert Carroll]

Bonnie,

That conditional could be seen as a factual premise, but then, again, the economist doesn't dispute that the conditional is a prediction they made. Instead, the economist is only trying to show that they weren't bumbling. So the economist is not disputing any premise of the critic. From the economist's perspective: "Yes, I made that prediction. Yes, the economy is strong. But I dispute your conclusion that I was bumbling because of that." The only thing disputed is the conclusion.

Robert Carroll

[Loug22]

Hello, I am having a hard time understanding what "did not obtain" means in the right answer. I truly can not see why it's right. I initially put E but I do not understand why A is right. Thank you!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Loug,

The "did not obtain" here is similar to "did not occur." Since the sufficient condition was not obtained, or met, we don't care that the necessary condition also was not met. It's unusual phrasing, and not the most natural, but that's the meaning here.

Hope that helps!