#17 - Economist: Some critics of the media have contended

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning—CE. The correct answer choice is (D)

Your task in this Method of Reasoning question is to select the answer choice that most accurately
describes the flaw in the economist’s argument.

Premise: some critics have contended that negative news reports on the state of the
economy can actually harm the economy because such reports damage
people’s confidence in it, and this lack of confidence in turn adversely affects
people’s willingness to spend money

Premise: but, studies show that spending trends correlate very closely with people’s
confidence in their own immediate economic situations

Conclusion: thus, these media critics are mistaken

Your prephrase is that the flaw in the economist’s argument is that it assumes people’s confidence
in their own immediate economic situations is not reduced by information that damages their
confidence in the economy generally. The correct answer will likely undermine the conclusion on
this basis.

The incorrect answers will not undermine the conclusion, either because they have no effect on it, or
will support it.

Answer choice (A): This choice is incorrect because it reverses the flaw in the argument.

Answer choice (B): This choice has no effect on the conclusion, because there is no reason to think
the accuracy of the report has any impact on how it affects the confidence of the viewer.

Answer choice (C): Since the argument did not pertain to those who pay no attention to economic
reports in the media, this information has no effect on the conclusion.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. This choice is correct because it shows how
the negative impact on confidence identified by the media critics could impact the individualized
economic view identified by the economist. If true, this choice describes how the negative media
reports could negatively affect consumer spending.

Answer choice (E): This choice has no effect on the conclusion, because the viewer’s advanced
knowledge was irrelevant to the conclusion.

[rgallego7]

Hello I am having a bit of trouble understanding the answer to question 17 of the first logical reasoning section of the December 2011 LSAT.

I am understanding the stimulus as such: Critics ague that negative news reports damage people's confidence and less confidence causes people to be less willing to spend money. However, study show that because there is correlation between people's confidence and spending then the news reports do not damage people's confidence and thus are not less likely to spend less.

I chose letter A: but the answer is D. Why is this the answer?

[Steve Stein]

The author of that one takes issue with the assertion that negative news reports can damage people's confidence in the economy, and as a result be less willing to spend money. The author says that people's spending is actually related to how they assess their own immediate economic situation, so it must not be about confidence in the economy.

The correct answer choice must point out the flaw in the author's argument--showing that negative news reports actually can lead to a lack of confidence and lower spending.

The flaw, as reflected in correct answer choice (D), is that the lack of confidence in the economy can make people pessimistic about their own situation. This strengthens the argument of the critics and points out the flaw in the economist's reasoning.

I hope that's helpful--let me know--thanks!

~Steve

[LustingFor!L]

I also chose A over D and am not understanding the difference.

[Adam Tyson]

Answers A and D are reversals of each other, Lusting. They both posit a causal relationship between one's perception of the overall economy and one's perception of one's own situation, but in answer A it's our own situation that colors our view of the world, and in D it's our view of the world that colors our view of our own situation. The problem here is that the author failed to consider that negative news about the overall economy might cause us to lose confidence in the economy and that, in turn, causes us to feel worse about our own situation. D gets the causal relationship in the right order, and A reverses it in a way that doesn't weaken the argument, which was our goal.

Let us know if that doesn't clear thing up!

[srcline697@gmail.com]

Hello Adam,

I 'm still not seeing why A is the reversal of D. The sentence before the conclusion states "that spending trends correlate very closely with people's confidence in their OWN immediate economic situations. D seems like its unsupported , how do we know that people are pessimistic towards their own immediate econ. situations. Why would the media critics be mistaken then, if D is just talking about PEOPLE and not negative new reports? A directly deals with the new reports and why the critics are mistaken?

Thankyou
Sarah

[Claire Horan]

Hi Sarah,

Here's my restatement of the conclusion:

The media critics are wrong: negative news reports on the state of the economy can't actually harm the economy.

The critics argue that: 1) negative news reports (cause) damage people’s confidence in the economy (effect)
2) people's lack of confidence in economy (cause) makes people less willing to spend money (effect)
To get to the critics' conclusion, we need to see that the author is implying that when people are less willing to spend money, the economy is harmed.

The author's counterpremise is: spending trends correlate very closely with people’s confidence in their own immediate economic situations.

The correct answer will link people's confidence in the economy with their confidence in their own immediate economic situations.
(A) and (D) both link these two variables; however, (A) links them in an unhelpful way. If people's confidence in their own immediate economic situations affect how people view news reports, then we can't blame news reports for harming the economy because it is people's confidence in their own situations that relates to spending trends.

In (D), though, the negative news reports cause people to lack confidence in the economy, which causes people to take a pessimistic view of their own economic situations, which decreases their willingness to spend, which harms the economy.

I hope this clarifies the issue for you.

[ericau02]

Hi I am so so confused by why D is correct and why A is wrong. How is A not the flaw? and with questions like this with preprashing its difficult to guess what flaw the authors is actually making? Like for instance I didn't think D was the flaw. I also thought D was incorrect because it specified people with "little confidence" when the stimulus doesn't discern between little or a alot of confidence?

Please help me understand why my reasoning is incorrect and how to reason better on the questions

[ericau02]

I put A as correct because I thought the flaw was that the author fails to consider the possibility that peoples confidence would affect the economy. So if the confidence in their own situations is low then ppl would not spend money. Couldnt this also be a flaw this was my intial prephrase.

[Brook Miscoski]

Erica,

The economist draws a distinction between an individual's concern about personal finances and an individual's concern about the economy. He claims that bad confidence in the economy doesn't harm the economy, because spending turns on concerns about personal finances.

The problem with that is that the two could be related--maybe an individual's concern about personal finances is related to what that individual expects the economy to do, so that pessimism about the economy causes pessimism about personal finances (and lower spending). That's answer choice (D).

Answer choice (A) is wrong because it reverses the flaw. The economist's mistake is in failing to realize that fear about the economy could drive fear about personal finances, not the reverse.