#12 - It is primarily by raising interest rates that central

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning-AP. The correct answer is (C)

Due to the relatively complex structure of the argument, it is important to understand it fully before proceeding to answer the question:

• Premise (1): Central bankers curb inflation by raising interest rates
  
  Premise (2): To be effective, bankers need to raise rates before inflation becomes apparent
  
  Sub. Conclusion: Rate hikes are perceived as needlessly restraining the economy
  
  Main Conclusion: Bankers' success in temporarily restraining inflation may make it harder for them to ward off future inflation without incurring the public's wrath.

The question stem asks us to examine the role played in the argument by the statement that it is primarily by raising interest rates that central bankers curb inflation. As described above, this statement is a premise that by definition serves to support the argument's main conclusion. Answer choice (C) is therefore correct.

Answer choice (A) That raising interest rates is a primary tool for curbing inflation is not a complete explanation for why bankers will incur the public wrath. Had this been the complete explanation, the rest of the argument would be pointless and redundant. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (B) The length of time it takes for rate hikes to affect inflation does not explain why bankers use interest rates to control inflation in the first place. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. See explanation above.

Answer choice (D) The length of time it takes for rate hikes to affect inflation neither explains nor supports the proposition that it is primarily by interest rate hikes that bankers curb inflation. Furthermore, this is not the conclusion of the argument, but a premise used in support of the main conclusion. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E) This answer choice is somewhat more attractive, as it correctly describes the argument part in question as a premise. However, the main conclusion of the argument is not that interest rate hikes are generally perceived as needlessly restraining a growing economy. This statement is a subsidiary conclusion, which the author uses to support her main conclusion that bankers' success in temporarily restraining inflation may make it harder for them to ward off future inflation without incurring the public's wrath. This answer choice is incorrect.

[cmouell]

This is the Method of Reasoning question dealing with central banks raising interest rates to curb inflation. The question stem asks: "which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the claim that it is primarily by raising interest rates that central banks curb inflation?" I chose answer choice B but the correct answer was C. B said it was a description of a phenomenon whereas answer C said it was a premise offered in support. I was wondering why the correct answer is B and also, whether or not any other description of a sentence as being a premise, intermediate conclusion, or conclusion would be an automatic "loser" such as B, in which the term premise or conclusion are not used. Thank you.

Very Respectfully, Chris O.

[David Boyle]

This is the Method of Reasoning question dealing with central banks raising interest rates to curb inflation. The question stem asks: "which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the claim that it is primarily by raising interest rates that central banks curb inflation?" I chose answer choice B but the correct answer was C. B said it was a description of a phenomenon whereas answer C said it was a premise offered in support. I was wondering why the correct answer is B and also, whether or not any other description of a sentence as being a premise, intermediate conclusion, or conclusion would be an automatic "loser" such as B, in which the term premise or conclusion are not used. Thank you.

Very Respectfully, Chris O.

Hello Chris O.,

As per C, it's a premise offered in support, in that the raising of interest rates is mentioned later on vis-a-vis the discomfort that people may feel if they think the rate hikes are hurting the economy. (These kinds of debates are playing out right now in the U.S., re the Federal Reserve, unemployment, etc.!)
Also, in B, is the part about "two years" etc., exactly an *explanation* of a phenomenon? Hmm.
As for your latter question: if something really is a "description of a phenomenon", or something else besides premise/conclusion, it may not be a loser...if it really is what it is described as being. Arguments tend to revolve around premises/conclusions, but if something is just sort of "sitting there", or is maybe an example that supports a premise, then it might be a legitimate answer choice anyway.
Hope that helps,

David

[mpoulson]

Hello,

I found this passage to be somewhat difficult to digest. Nevertheless, I came down to answer C & E whose answers suggested two differing conclusion. Ultimately, I though the answer was E and that the conclusion was "unless inflation is readily apparent, IR hikes will be perceived as needlessly restraining a growing economy". The actual conclusion "...incurring the public wrath". However, I still have trouble understanding what makes it clear that this sentence is the main conclusion and not a subsidiary conclusion. Please explain.

- Micah

[Nikki Siclunov]

Micah,

The conclusion is the last sentence thanks to the conclusion indicator "thus" at the beginning of that sentence. The observation that interest rate hikes will be perceived as needlessly restraining a growing economy is a big downside, and is the reason why central bankers' success in temporarily restraining inflation may make it harder to ward off future inflation. The second-to-last sentence supports the claim in the last sentence, making the last sentence the main conclusion of the argument.

To sum up, the argument is structured as follows:

• Premise: Bankers curb inflation by raising interest rates.
  
  Premise: Increase in interest rates take up to 2 years to affect inflation.
  
  Sub. Conclusion: Accordingly, bankers try to raise rates before inflation becomes excessive, when it's not readily apparent.
  
  Sub. Conclusion: When bankers do that, they risk being perceived as needlessly restraining a growing economy.
  
  Conclusion: Thus, success in temporarily restraining inflation makes it harder to ward off future inflation without incurring the public's wrath (i.e without being perceived as needlessly restraining a growing economy).

Hope this clears things up!

[Toby]

Hello!

I've got two questions. First, while I was reading this stimulus, I saw the words "unless" in sentence 3 and "without" in sentence 4, and I thought that I should diagram these two sentences using S/N terminology. The answer choices did not mention S/N logic at all, so I was incorrect in thinking that I should diagram them. Would someone mind explaining to me how I can tell when to diagram vs. when I should not diagram?

My second question has to do with the language in answer choice B. In the LSAT world, what is a "phenomenon"?
How can I recognize that I have encountered one in a stimulus?

Thanks for the help!
Toby

[HowardQ]

Hi,
I have a somewhat general question about this. The explanation given for C being the correct answer was that it is a premise and it supposed to support the main conclusion. Is it possible that a premise supports a subconclusion? Does conclusion in the answer stem means the main conclusion and will always indicate subconclusion if they mean it, or by stating conclusion they mean could be either sub or main.

Thanks,

[Adam Tyson]

Sub-conclusions are definitely supported by premises, HowardQ, and the answer choice here could have said that. However, anything that supports the sub-conclusion must also support the main conclusion, even if it does so indirectly. So the answer doesn't have to mention the sub-conclusion, even though it could.

The use of the word "conclusion" doesn't automatically mean the main conclusion, but refers to any conclusion in the argument. In this case, for example, if they had instead asked about what role the sub-conclusion had played, the answer could have just said "it is a conclusion in the argument" and that would have been accurate and correct. It's when they get more specific and say things like "it is a conclusion that is used to support the main conclusion" or "it is a claim that gets support from another claim and does not support any other claim" that we have to make sure whether we are looking at a main conclusion or a sub-conclusion, and be clear about what the answer is describing.

[silent7706]

Sub-conclusions are definitely supported by premises, HowardQ, and the answer choice here could have said that. However, anything that supports the sub-conclusion must also support the main conclusion, even if it does so indirectly. So the answer doesn't have to mention the sub-conclusion, even though it could.

The use of the word "conclusion" doesn't automatically mean the main conclusion, but refers to any conclusion in the argument. In this case, for example, if they had instead asked about what role the sub-conclusion had played, the answer could have just said "it is a conclusion in the argument" and that would have been accurate and correct. It's when they get more specific and say things like "it is a conclusion that is used to support the main conclusion" or "it is a claim that gets support from another claim and does not support any other claim" that we have to make sure whether we are looking at a main conclusion or a sub-conclusion, and be clear about what the answer is describing.

Hi Adam,

Not sure whether I understand you correctly, it seems that you are suggesting that first sentence is indeed a premise that is used to support a sub-conclusion "unless inflation is readily apparent..." Wouldn't that make (E) a correct choice? Or are you suggesting that in this specific case, (E) has to say "unless inflation is readily apparent..." is a sub-conclusion for (E) to be correct?

Please advise and thanks in advance.

[Malila Robinson]

Hi silent7706,
Since this is a Method of Reasoning question the answer choices will be phrased with very picky/specific language. "A conclusion" could mean 'main conclusion' or 'sub-conclusion' whereas "the conclusion" would mean 'the only conclusion' or 'the main conclusion'. A premise will support the main conclusion, and generally will also support any sub-conclusion in a passage.
For Answer E the use of "the conclusion" would mean that it should be the main conclusion, but it isn't. So if they had used "a conclusion" or "the sub-conclusion" it would have been a better answer.
Hope that helps!
-Malila