#14 - The economy is doing badly. First, the real estate

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Must Be True—SN. The correct answer choice is (D)

This stimulus provides some conditional reasoning, with the conclusion presented in the first sentence: The economy is doing badly. This is based on the premise that two indicators (real estate and car sales) are performing poorly.



R.E.Slump
and Bad Economy likely
Low Car Sales


And the contrapositive:

R.E.Slump
Bad Economy or
Low Car Sales

(Note that the author’s logic requires that both indicators perform poorly in order to draw the conclusion that the economy is probably doing badly).

Answer choice (A): This choice is incorrect, because it suggests that low car sales alone are sufficient to indicate a bad economy. The stimulus suggests that either low car sales or a real estate slump alone is consistent with a good economy, which means a slump in either variable alone would be insufficient to establish the likelihood of a bad economy.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice characterizes the Bad Economy as the sufficient variable, but claims that success in the real estate or car sales market is consistent with a good economy, not that success in those markets guarantee a good economy. This choice is a Mistaken Reversal of the author’s assertion that poor performance in real estate and car sales is likely to indicate a poor economy.

Answer choice (C): Poorly performing real estate or car sales performance is consistent with a good economy. This does not mean that a healthy economy is likely, only that it is possible, so this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice, as it reflects the logic from the contrapositive diagrammed above: A healthy economy (“Bad Economy” from the diagram) means that at least one of the two variables (real estate & car sales) is not faltering, which rules out at the possibility that both indicators are performing poorly.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice provides another example of a Mistaken Reversal. The stimulus tells us that poor performance in both real estate and car sales is sufficient to conclude that a bad economy is likely, which is much different from claiming that these factors are the necessary variables if we actually know that the economy is doing badly.

[8scn]

Hi, why is D a better answer than C or E? I diagrammed the stimulus as (red means the term is negated):

Premise: RES (real estate slump) or LCS (low car sales) --> H (healthy economy)
Premise: RES + LCS --> H (not healthy economy, bad economy)

Isn’t ans. C premise 1?: RES --> H
Isn’t ans. E the contrapositive of premise 1?: H --> RES + LCS

[Steve Stein]

The author's conclusion is that the economy is doing badly, based on the fact that two indicators (real estate and car sales) are performing poorly. This can be diagrammed as follows:

Real estate slump
and ------------------------> Bad economy likely
Low car sales

The contrapositive, then, would be diagrammed as follows:

. ... NO Real estate slump
No Bad Economy --> or
. ... NO Low car sales


Correct answer choice D is the only one that can be confirmed with the conditional reasoning diagrammed above (specifically with the contrapositive).

Let me know if this is clear--conditional reasoning can be challenging.

Thanks!

[PowerSteve]

I found question number 14 from the first logical reasoning section of October '04 difficult. Particularly, I was torn between answer choices C and D (I knew the correct choice was one or the other). While I think I now understand why choice D is correct and choice C is not, I would like to explain that reasoning here so that someone can tell me if my reasoning is correct or not. In the event that my reasoning is incorrect I certainly do not want to apply it to any similar questions in the future.

Initially I understood "had either one or the other phenomenon failed to occur, this would be consistent with the economy as a whole being healthy" to mean that if either the real estate slump had not been with us for some time or car sales were not at their lowest in years, then the economy as a whole would likely be healthy. Having spent some more time looking over the question I have gathered from the last sentence of the stimulus, "But, their occurrence together makes it quite probable that my conclusion is correct," that I had made a mistaken reversal in writing my conditional statement above. It seems that the last sentence of the stimulus can be understood to mean that if the real estate slump has been with us for some time and car sales are at their lowest in years, then the economy is likely doing badly. The contrapositive of this statement is that if the economy is not doing badly (or, if the economy as a whole is healthy) then it is likely that the real estate slump has not been with us for some time or car sales are not at their lowest in years (or, it is unlikely that the real estate slump has been with us for some time and car sales are at their lowest in years). This is the converse of the statement that I had initially understood, indicating that I made a mistaken reversal.

This reflection on question number 14 has led me to several questions: Did the LSAT need to even include the last sentence of the stimulus? Should I have simply been able to come up with the correct conditional statement from the second to last sentence of the stimulus? Is the word "consistent" the main thing to focus on in that second to last sentence? Does the word "consistent" indicate that the sufficient condition will be what follows?

Thanks in advance,
Steve

[PhilD]

I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around this one, i think i'm confusing the conditional statements in the stimulus.... help me, please! Thanks!

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your question. How did you break this one down? Were you able to create any conditional statements from the stimulus?

Let me know--thanks!

~Steve

[Steve Stein]

Good question. It's actually the last sentence that provides the conditional statement in that one: If both of those indicators take place, then its likely that the economy is doing badly:

real estate slump
....+....--> likely economy is bad
very low car sales

"consistent" is much weaker: the statement involving consistent basically just says that if one or the other indicator is missing, then it's possible that the economy is ok (no guarantees).

Tricky language--let me know whether that clears it up--thanks!

~Steve

[PowerSteve]

Thanks Steve. Your response pretty much clears it up. I just have two comments I'd like you to respond to in order to make sure I fully understand:

1) The statement, "Of course, had either one or the other phenomenon failed to occur, this would be consistent with the economy as a whole being healthy" is really just a filler that is not essential in answering the problem. The other statements of the stimulus can, without that statement, combine to form a conditional statement that is the contrapositive of the correct answer choice.

2) That statement, and in the future similar statements including the phrase "would be consistent with," should not be thought of as a conditional statement (unless of course in the future there was some other phrase such as "if...then" to indicate a conditional nature). This is because "consistent" just implies possible, and a conditional statement requires that either one thing will follow necessarily from another thing or that one thing will at least likely follow from another thing (as was the case in question 14). It would not make sense to consider one thing possibly following from another thing as a conditional statement (though that could be helpful in a must be/cannot be true question).

Thanks so much in advance!

~Steve

[PhilD]

Thanks, Steve

This is how I broke down the stimulus:

Conclusion: economy bad
Premise 1: real estate slump
Premise 2: car sales low
Premise 3: NOT real estate slump OR NOT car sales low --> NOT economy bad (or economy healthy)

With this break down, I get E as the correct answer.

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for the clarification; it's actually the last sentence that provides the conditional statement in that one: If both of those indicators take place, then its likely that the economy is doing badly:

real estate slump
....+....--> likely economy is bad
very low car sales

"consistent" is much weaker: the statement involving consistent basically just says that if one or the other indicator is missing, then it's possible that the economy is ok (no guarantees).

Tricky language--let me know whether that clears it up--thanks!

~Steve