#15 - Economist: Many of my colleagues are arguing

[Adam Tyson]

Hey there, hrhyoo, let me see if I can clarify for you. First, the part about "many of my colleagues say" isn't really a premise of the argument, because that isn't used to support the conclusion. A premise is a claim made by the author that is used to provide support to a conclusion. So that statement was really just establishing the subject matter of the argument. Let's say it provided background, and established what it is that the author is arguing against.

So, the argument boils down to one premise, which is that the economy is growing at a sustainable rate. That is used to support a VERY broad conclusion, that there is no reason to lower interest rates. The author has eliminated ONE reason - boosting the economy - and made a giant leap to there being NO other possible reason for lowering interest rates. What if there might be other reasons for doing so? That's the flaw here. I might describe this as a classic "some evidence" flaw - the author has some evidence that an action isn't useful, and concludes that the action cannot possibly be useful. The author takes their evidence too far, believing it to be complete proof of a claim when it merely strengthens that claim.

In short, the conclusion is "there's no reason." The flaw is failing to consider other reasons beside the one discussed.

[hrhyoo]

Crystal clear! Thanks and Merry Christmas, Adam!

[dlehr99]

But the whole argument was quite focused on the relationship between the interest rate and its effect on the economy so isn't it obvious that the conclusion would be about not lower to stimulate the economy? Please help clarify this for me.

This was my exact thought process too and while I see how the small difference in word choice in the conclusion does lead to the credited answer, this is a tough one for me to swallow. I just don't know/see how I would have made that distinction under pressure in a timed setting.

The answer is to "read more closely"

Experts - do you have any advice here other than its simply critical to read with that level of detail? As hrhyoo mentioned - it seemed obvious and its not a terribly difficult leap to make that connection.

[Adam Tyson]

I would argue that the word choice in the stimulus is NOT a small one, dlehr99. To give evidence against one reason and then conclude that there is NO reason is a HUGE leap of logic! It's not just reading closely for one word here or there, but about paying attention to the relative strength of the various statement being made. If the evidence is about something that would be good, and the conclusion is about something being better, that's a major difference. If the premises are about what could occur, and the conclusion is about what will occur or what will probably occur, that's a seismic shift. Shifting from facts to opinions, from probability to certainty, from past to present, from some to all - these are all critical ideas that deserve our attention at every stage of the test, as they do in law school and in the practice of law. We address the importance of language and these sorts of indicators very early in all of our course materials, and we want our students to really get tuned in to looking at them and for them closely. Not just read more closely, but read with greater intention and with an aggressive mindset, seeking out shifts in tone and strength and type of language.

Any time you see an argument that makes a leap of any kind, you should be attacking that leap. Solid arguments go step by step, with no leaps! "It's not that big a leap" is still a leap, and that means there may be a flaw in it that you can exploit.

I'm going to follow this up with a new official explanation for this question, which will eventually be moved to the top of the thread. Check that later and see if it adds anything more useful for you. Meanwhile, keep up the good work!

[dlehr99]

Solid arguments go step by step, with no leaps! "It's not that big a leap" is still a leap, and that means there may be a flaw in it that you can exploit.

Thank you for that reminder to stay in attack mode and I feel like I should be printed and put on my wall!

[spsa1000]

That's exactly right, Freddy. The author has told us that lowering interest rates isn't necessary to stimulate growth, so he has eliminated ONE possible reason for lowering the rates. But then he concludes that there is NO reason to lower the rates, which is going pretty far when all he did was eliminate one possible reason. He has to be assuming, then, that there could be no other reason. That's the problem - there could be another reason other than stimulating growth that he has failed to take into account.

Hi there! I'm confused by this explanation. The stimulus starts off by saying that his colleagues are arguing that they should lower the interest rates to stimulate economic growth. They've offered only one reason why interest rates should be lowered. I understood that there could be other reasons to lower the interest rates but because his argument was about his colleagues reasoning, I didn't think those reasons were relevant. In response to his colleagues who are saying there's only one reason to lower interest rates, he proves that that economic growth is already occurring so the reasoning of their argument does not exist. On that basis, I chose B because I figured he was potentially making a faulty causal argument.

[Adam Tyson]

You would be correct about answer C, spsa1000, if the conclusion was "So my colleagues are wrong about lowering interest rates to stimulate the economy." But the conclusion went much farther than that, going all the way to there being NO reason to lower interest rates. You said:

but because his argument was about his colleagues reasoning, I didn't think those reasons were relevant

But his argument isn't just about his colleagues reasoning. It goes beyond their reasoning to dismiss any possible reason for lowering interest rates. That's the flaw! You cannot go from "X is not a good reason" to "therefore there are no reasons at all."

[gingerale]

Hello, I don't think I'm totally clear on why answer choice C is correct. I understand that in reality, there could be more reasons behind lowering interest rates than simply to stimulate economic growth. However, in the stimulus, it is stated that the economists colleagues "are arguing that interest rates should be further lowered in order to stimulate economic growth," citing stimulating economic growth as the sole reason for lowering interest rates. Should we be distrustful of the economists' opinion on said colleagues because this is a flaw in the reasoning question? Thanks!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi gingerale,

To put it very bluntly, yes! Don't trust that anyone's argument/opinion that is offered in a stimulus is correct or comprehensive. In other words, just because the economists are arguing on that one basis doesn't mean they've considered the issue comprehensively. So, despite the economists' narrow focus, there could still be other reasons to lower interest rates. By the way, I'd apply that thought process to group/individual's argument that is discussed in a stimulus, whether or not you find it in a Flaw question. The LSAT never wants us to trust that some group/individual has gotten it "right," unless there's some independent statement that they are in fact right.

I hope this helps!

[gwlsathelp]

What would this look like conditionally? I see conditional indicators present and the second premise is confusing with its use of "no such stimulation is needed: the economy is already growing sustainably."

Here's what I had:
original argument: stimulate economy lower interest rates
economist (refutation): stimulated economy lower interest rates