#1 - If a country’s manufacturing capacity is fully utilized

[Echx73]

Hey Team,

Can you write out the conditional statement for me, please? Lastly, I feel like B is worded too softly to be the correct answer of a conditional statement. When know from the stimulus lowering interest rates produces new capital. The correct answer uses the word "might" cause precondition for industrial growth. Thank you!

Eric

[David Boyle]

Hey Team,

Can you write out the conditional statement for me, please? Lastly, I feel like B is worded too softly to be the correct answer of a conditional statement. When know from the stimulus lowering interest rates produces new capital. The correct answer uses the word "might" cause precondition for industrial growth. Thank you!

Eric

Hello Eric,

"Might" does seem a little of an understatement, but on a test where "some" can also mean "all", and "could be true" is true if something "must be true" (e.g., since I am writing this answer right now, it not only "must be true" that I'm doing it, it also "could be true"), "might" is good enough.

Diagrams:

Fully utilized (growth cap. invest)
Reduction cap. invest.

Hope this helps,
David

[AlyonaHess]

Hi team,
Would you kindly explain the way you diagram the first condition? I’m confused with “no industrial growth without new capital investment”. Why did you negate the negation?

Thank you!

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi AlyonaHess,

Great question! You could also take the contrapositive of the diagram David made; capital investment growth. The way David diagrammed it, it is a little easier to parse, but either way is correct. Just remember that for the contrapositive you're switching sides and negating both things.

[chian9010]

Dear Powerscore,

I have a question on answer choice A). Is this statement a correct description but this is not the best answer choice or not be able to concluded from the stimulus? I tried to find a flaw on this statement but I am not sure if there is any.

Thank you

CY

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Chian,

Excellent question. In fact, answer choice (A) directly contradicts the stimulus. This is a Must Be True question, so we're looking for an answer choice that passes the Fact Test™. We need to find a statement that we can prove based on information in the stimulus. This stimulus contains two conditional statements:

1. Industrial growth requires capital investment. IG CI
2. Reducing interest rates results in capital investment. RIR CI

Thus, we know that any time we reduce interest rates, there must be capital investment. Answer choice (A) contradicts this statement. First, we don't know anything about "exceptional cases." Second, if we take the information in the stimulus to be true, even in exceptional cases there would still be capital investment every time interest rates are reduced.

Answer choice (B) gives us a scenario in which interest rates have been reduced. What do we know when interest rates are reduced? We know there will be capital investment. If he have capital investment, we then know that a necessary precondition for industrial growth has occurred.

If we use the conditional statements correctly, we actually can infer with more certainty that a precondition for industrial growth has been met with reduced interest rates. The reduction in interest rates "will produce" capital investment, not just "might cause."

In effect, we can say, "Hey guys, not only do we know the reduced interest rates might cause capital investment. They will cause capital investment." So we're super sure that (B) is a valid statement.

I hope this helps!

[S2KMo]

Hi, Chian,

Excellent question. In fact, answer choice (A) directly contradicts the stimulus. This is a Must Be True question, so we're looking for an answer choice that passes the Fact Test™. We need to find a statement that we can prove based on information in the stimulus. This stimulus contains two conditional statements:

1. Industrial growth requires capital investment. IG CI
2. Reducing interest rates results in capital investment. RIR CI

Thus, we know that any time we reduce interest rates, there must be capital investment. Answer choice (A) contradicts this statement. First, we don't know anything about "exceptional cases." Second, if we take the information in the stimulus to be true, even in exceptional cases there would still be capital investment every time interest rates are reduced.

Answer choice (B) gives us a scenario in which interest rates have been reduced. What do we know when interest rates are reduced? We know there will be capital investment. If he have capital investment, we then know that a necessary precondition for industrial growth has occurred.

If we use the conditional statements correctly, we actually can infer with more certainty that a precondition for industrial growth has been met with reduced interest rates. The reduction in interest rates "will produce" capital investment, not just "might cause."

In effect, we can say, "Hey guys, not only do we know the reduced interest rates might cause capital investment. They will cause capital investment." So we're super sure that (B) is a valid statement.

I hope this helps!

Hello, my only confusion with this explanation is that a necessary condition can occur without a sufficient condition occurring, so how is it that if we have reduced interest rates, we know that preconditions have been met for industrial growth? Because RIR NCI and IG NCI, but NCI can occur without either of those things (RIR & IG) occurring. Is there something I'm missing?

[James Finch]

Hi Mo,

"Precondition" here is used as a synonym for "necessary condition." New capital investments (NCI) is a necessary condition for both industrial growth (IG) and reducing interest rates (RIR), but because of the way the stimulus locates them chronologically, reducing interest rates would occur before new capital investment, which would then make it possible, but not definite, that industrial growth could occur. Answer choice (B) is describing this conditional relationship correctly, but in a way in which test takers may become confused by the chronology (assuming a Mistaken Reversal of the first conditional relationship). With conditional logic, the chronology is not important, just the necessary/sufficient relationships.

Hope this helps!

[S2KMo]

Ahh, makes sense!

Thanks James!

[onlywinter]

I was in between A and B.

I'm trying to understand why A is wrong.

I had diagrammed A as -RIR -> NCI. Because RIR is a sufficient but not necessary condition in RIR -> NCI according to the stimulus, negating RIR does not mean NCI would be negated. To assume otherwise, would turn the statement into a mistaken negation. I, therefore, thought A might happen. Where am I going wrong?