#4 - Economist: Our country needs as much capital as possible from

[Luke Haqq]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (B).

Answer choice (A): This is more a recommendation about what the country ought to do. It doesn't address the laws mentioned in the conclusion. We need something that addresses these laws as a tool for getting as much capital as possible, and specifically an answer choice that weakens the view that such laws are a good tool for that purpose.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. The conclusion of this stimulus is that certain laws should be passed to make it more difficult for overseas investors to remove their capital. The rationale for this is that the county needs "as much capital as possible" from these investors and therefore "cannot afford any reduction in it." However, what if passing those laws were antithetical to the goal of obtaining "as much capital as possible"? Answer choice (B) raises the possibility that these laws might discourage additional investment.

Answer choice (C): This seems to strengthen the conclusion rather than weaken it. It reinforces the notion that investments from overseas investors contributes to the strength of the economy.

Answer choice (D): This might suggest that the given laws won't be completely effective in preventing funds from being removed. However, one problem is that it switches to refer to another country. We can't be sure how conclusions about this other country ought to shape conclusions about the economist's country. In addition, we also don't know how the laws in this other country affected overall net gain or loss of capital in the country.

Answer choice (E): More would be needed for this answer to be a contender. In particular, we don't know what the effect of these laws from two years ago was. Did they ensure the country had as much capital as possible? Or something less than that? Without additional information, this answer choice doesn't weaken the conclusion.

[SwanQueen]

Greetings,

I am conflicted with answer choices (B) vs (D). I had chosen (D).

(B): attacks the notion that making it more difficult will discourage investors from "investing any additional capital."

However, our IC (sentence 2) tells us "we cannot afford any reduction."

This to me was therefore a weaker weakener than (D), as the latter attacks the IC. We know from other countries that they can/will still remove it, as needed. Hence, the passage of laws making it more difficult will NOT help us to sustain our economy per se.

Ultimately, why is (B) better than (D)? Or, is (D) entirely wrong for a reason I am not noticing?

Thank you in advance!

[Paul Popa]

Hey Queen,

Great question! The economist posits that their country needs as much capital as possible from overseas investors; this is the "top priority," so to speak, in order to sustain their economy. The economist, then, suggests that the country should make it difficult for those investors to remove their capital, since they cannot afford any reduction in said capital. We're being asked to weaken this argument, and I prephrased that the economist's proposal would likely hurt their end goal of acquiring as much overseas capital as possible. (B) does this perfectly; if the laws proposed by the economist are implemented, the overseas investors would be strongly discouraged from investing any additional capital, thus hurting the economist's end goal.

My main issue with (D) is that it refers to other countries. Countries vary widely in their wealth, resources, markets, etc., and it's hard to know for sure whether what has happened in other countries will happen in the economist's. In addition, even if some capital was removed, we know nothing about additional capital that may have been invested. Was it truly a net loss, or possibly a net gain?

Overall, I would say that the top priority of the economist is sustaining the economy, which is why they are interested in acquiring as much capital as possible. Stopping any sort of reduction of the capital already invested is more of a means to an end rather than the end itself. Hope this helps!

[flowerpower]

Hi! I'm still struggling with B vs. D. I understand that for D, the laws don't need to be perfect to ensure the majority of capital remains in the country, but I feel like B is also pretty broad. Yes, the stimulus says that "our country needs as much capital as possible," but it also says "we cannot afford ANY reduction in capital," which D addresses.

And would mentioning "countries other than the economist's" in D really be irrelevant? I thought it could still be a solid weakener because it makes sense to apply what works/doesn't work for other countries in this country.

Apologies if I am not expressing myself well, please let me know if there's anything I can clarify.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi flowerpower!

To speak to answer choice (B), the conclusion of this stimulus is that certain laws should be passed to make it more difficult for overseas investors to remove their capital. Why does the economist conclude this? The economist's reasons are that we need as much capital from overseas investors as possible. So this is a claim about total investments. A law that makes it harder for capital to leave the country might be useful in preserving that those funds stay within the country, but what if an unintended side effect of the law was that it discouraged additional investment? This raises the possibility that total investments could potentially be higher without the law.

Regarding answer choice (D), you raise a good point in asking whether countries other than the economist's are really irrelevant. I don't think they are fully irrelevant. Rather, it is just something that one can try to take issue with in this answer choice, since we don't know how comparable these countries are to the economist's country. (D) is also incorrect because it's just saying that the given laws might not be fully effective. That doesn't weaken the conclusion that they should be passed nonetheless. Perhaps they won't fully prevent the removal of capital but are still successful in preventing the removal of some of it.

[flowerpower]

Thanks, Luke, for your explanation!

The premise says, though, that "we cannot afford ANY reduction in the amount of capital." So, for D, if any capital is removed, that would be bad and shows that D would weaken, even if it is slight. I just don't see any difference in the strength of weakening that B and D do, besides the fact that D mentions other countries.