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

[Steve Stein]

Hey Steve,

You got it--consistent with another factor just means that the other factor is possible. That is a very tough question!

~Steve

[PowerSteve]

Thanks Steve!

[powerguy]

Hi,
Why is C incorrect?

The author says that had either one or the other no happened, this would be consistent with the economy as a whole being healthy. By conditional:
~RESlump or ~ CSLow then economy as whole being healthy work.

I am a bit confused.

Also what does "consistent with" mean in conditional world? Does it imply correlation? Please help.

[Steve Stein]

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.

real estate slump
and bad economy likely
poor 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 C provides that Poorly performing real estate or car sales performance is consistent with a good economy. This, however, does not mean that a healthy economy is likely, only that it is possible.

Answer D 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.

As for your second question, consistency just means lack of inconsistency. If there is no inconsistency between two premises, those two premises are consistent. In LSAT terms, then, "consistent" just means Could Be True; "inconsistent" would mean Cannot Be True.

I hope that's helpful! Let me know--thanks!

~Steve

[moshei24]

First off, this is a very tricky, difficult question. And I think you see what the key term in the question is - "consistent."

The question says that if either failed to occur, it would be consistent with the economy as a whole being healthy. That doesn't imply that it's likely that the economy as a whole is healthy, it just said that it would work with that. It's like saying, "the fact that he got a good job is consistent with his good grades." Does that mean that him getting a good job means it's likely he has good grades? Nope.

The reason why (D) is the best answer is because based on the argument, it is definitely unlikely that if the economy were to be healthy, that both of those would have occurred. The real estate slump and the bad car sales is what the arguer uses as support for his conclusion. So, if the conclusion is no longer true, it is unlikely that what was used to support it is still true either. I see it as a half-witted contrapositive - if the conclusion is no longer true, the premises that supported unlikely to both still be true.

My explanation of why (D) is correct may be a bit confusing, so if someone else wants to maybe explain it more clearly, that would be great.

Let me know if that helps!

Thanks!

[moshei24]

haha, sorry, Steve. Didn't see you answered his post - I had already written a long answer when I saw you had posted in the meantime.

[lunsandy]

Hi Powerscore,

When I was doing this question I diagramed the premise: /RE or /CS H. Contrapositive: /H RE + CS . And then the stim switches and says BUT no, it's actually RE + CS EB. Contrapositive /EB /RES or /LCS. Is it because the part before the BUT is only context, and following the BUT is the premise that supports our conclusion in the first line? I thought MSS is anything in the stim that is supported?

I got trapped into question C because I diagramed the premise/ context only and not the conclusion until upon review. Since MSS can be anything in the stim. that is supported, shouldn't C be correct then? I thought both the premise and conclusion were diagrammable because they had strong indicators like "consistent" and "quite probable."

Thanks a lot!

[Claire Horan]

Hi Lunsandy,

First, let's make sure we are correctly identifying the premises and conclusions.

The conclusion is the first sentence, that the economy is doing badly. The other sentences are premises.

Premise 1: RE slump
Premise 2: CS slump
Premise 3: It can be true that if only RE slump or only CS slump, economy is healthy.

Note, as Steve did, that Premise 3 is not susceptible to sufficient/necessary diagramming because "consistent" with just means that two things can both be true, not that one thing is sufficient for another to be true.

Premise 4: RE + CS Economy is likely doing badly/not healthy.

The contrapositive of Premise 4 is: Likely Healthy RE OR CS

[Kelly R]

Hi PS,

I'm a bit confused by the explanations that have been posted with respect to Answer (C). I eliminated it on the basis that it seems to represent a Mistaken Negation of the original conditional statement. Is this a fair assessment of (C)?

[Adam Tyson]

Yes it is, Kelly! If you choose to take that conditional approach with this question, then answer C should be eliminated because it looks like a Mistaken Negation. Good work!