#15 - Main Point

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=14161)

The correct answer choice is (E)

This Main Point question can be challenging, in part because the passage amounts to a description
of someone else’s position (Warsh’s). To make matters worse, Warsh’s argument has two distinctly
different objectives: to clarify why two economic models are incompatible with each other, and
explain why one of them failed to gain prominence among economists for a long time. None of the
five answer choices adequately summarizes both of these points, nor do they have to: the question
is not asking us to restate Warsh’s arguments, but rather to express the main point of the passage.
Warsh’s arguments are, above all, explanatory: they establish the causes of a particular phenomenon
in economic theory. By contrast, the main point of the passage is to describe the occurrence of that
phenomenon and situate it in historical perspective. The distinction between the two perspectives is
subtle, but crucial.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice is factually incorrect: for almost two centuries, the
assumption of diminishing, not increasing, returns has dominated economic theory (lines 36-37).

Answer choice (B): This answer choice can be attractive, because it summarizes the causal argument
attributed to Warsh in the fourth paragraph. However, as discussed earlier, the question is asking us
to express the main point of the passage, which is slightly different in scope as well as purpose.

Answer choice (C): There is no evidence that the Pin Factory has recently been modeled even more
rigorously than the Invisible Hand. This answer choice contains an exaggeration and can easily be
eliminated.

Answer choice (D): Even though this answer choice can be proven by reference to the second
paragraph of the passage, it is not the main point. The author only mentions Adam Smith in order
to define certain key terms of Warsh’s argument, not to illustrate Smith’s contributions to modern
economic thought.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. As discussed in the VIEWSTAMP analysis
above, the main point of the passage is to describe the inherent contradiction between two economic
models, and point to the failure of mainstream economists to account for one of these two models.
Answer choice (E) is the closest to this prephrase, and is therefore correct.

[lsat2016]

Hello,

Can you further elaborate on what you mean by

“Warsh’s arguments are, above all, explanatory: they establish the causes of a particular phenomenon
in economic theory. By contrast, the main point of the passage is to describe the occurrence of that
phenomenon and situate it in historical perspective.”

I thought the purpose of this passage is to explain. Why did you conclude that it is merely to describe a phenomenon? Is it b/c of the last paragraph? Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

The Main Point here IS to "explain", lsat2016, but the question is "explain what?" Answer B tells us what Warsh is saying, and the main point of the passage is not merely to explain what Warsh said, but to then explain how what he said fits into a larger context. You're correct that the last paragraph is key here, because it takes us beyond what Warsh said and gives us greater historical context into which to place Warsh's ideas. That's what makes answer E the better answer.

Subtle and difficult! This was harder than most Main Point questions, in my opinion, precisely because it does seem like the bulk of the passage is about the contradiction described by Warsh.

[Pragmatism]

Please scrutinize my methodology to reach the correct answer.

A) Not true, because of the lines you referenced earlier (36-37).

B) I thought while this may have some merit to it, but then looking at paragraph 4, what could be deduced, at best, is that the Invisible Hand had "mathematical rigor," and at worst, as Warsh explains in lines 38-40, "it was about following the line of least mathematical resistance," leading one to question, if mathematical rigor was even applied. Furthermore, since, as lines 41-44 suggest, "economist has always had scientific aspirations; economist have always sought the rigor and clarity that comes from representing their ideas using numbers and equations." Having that said, this answer choice only gives us "rigor" rather than both "rigor and clarity." Another issue I had with this answer choice was the the concept on why Invisible Hand was even accepted, which was the functioning was primarily accepted because of mathematical rigor. However, the passage, under Warsh seems to state the contrary, and while Warsh believes the contrary, the author never refutes or attempts to correct his characterization of the Invisible Hand, leading me to believe, if the functionality was the primary reason behind its adoption.

C) Could be true, but nothing in the passage supports this.

D) So...

E) This was supported by conglomerating the following:
---P1: "describes a great contradiction inherent in economic theory," and "Warsh calls it a struggle between the P.F. and the I.H"
---P3: lines 20-21 and 33-35. Also, pay attention to the transitional word "but."
---P4: line 36-38 and 44-47.
---P5: lines 48-52 and 57-59.

[Malila Robinson]

Hi Pragmatism,
Your reasoning for A-C-D-E appear sound. For B, however, the argument is contrasting 'Pin Factory' with 'the invisible hand' and a major difference between them is that 'the invisible hand' had the mathematical representation that 'Pin Factory' was missing. So rather than trying to figure out whether 'the invisible hand was mathematically supported, the focus should have been whether that was the main point. Answer choice B addresses one side of the comparison between 'Pin Factory' and 'the invisible hand', however the answer to a Main Point question would need to try to address the full argument rather than one part of it, as is explained in the Administrator's post (above).

[cgs174]

Hi! I went between B) and E) for awhile before ultimately choosing B). I felt that E) better met the charge of expressing the main point however I didn't think it passed a fact check. E) states that economists have previously failed to account for increasing returns "common in many industries" which I thought was not asserted by the passage. The closest the passage gets to asserting that increasing returns in common is by stating that increasing returns "characterize many enterprises." I felt these were different in both the scope (industries vs enterprises) as well as the number (many vs common) How can these be considered equivalent statements?

Thanks!

[Robert Carroll]

cgs174,

Lines 50-51 of the passage directly refer to railroads as one of many enterprises where the Pin Factory parable applies. There is no difference between that and industries.

The passage and answer choice (E) both say "many". There is no difference in quantitative wording here.

Robert Carroll