#10 - Economist: The economy seems to be heading out

[lenihil]

Dear PowerScore,

Could you please explain the meaning of (B)? I narrowed down to (B) and (E) and chose (B) eventually.

For (B), I think that for a conclusion to be true, the premise must be true. Otherwise, how could we conclude something valid from a false premise?

For (E), I think that the "primary evidence" generally means the "sub-conclusion", which is the "indicating that they expect economic growth in the near future" part in this stimulus.

There must be something wrong with my thoughts. But I don't know what it is.

Thank you for your help.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi leni,

With answer choice B, sometimes a premise doesn't necessarily have to be true for a conclusion to be true. That's particularly true in the case of data that is being used as an example. In this argument, the piece of data in the premise ("consumers are buying more durable goods than before") is a helpful sampling point for the conclusion that the economy seems to be coming out of recession. But even if that data weren't true, there might be other data supporting the truth of the conclusion. So the truth of this premise is helpful for the conclusion. But its truth isn't required for the conclusion to be true.

With answer choice E, the "evidence" is the hard data itself (the recent figures), whereas the sub-conclusion at the end of the stimulus is an inference drawn from that evidence. So answer choice E fits quite well, since data/studies/figures are good examples of "evidence."

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[lenihil]

Dear Jeremy,

Thank you. I think I have confused validity with truth.

An argument could be valid with all statements being untrue.