- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:00 am
#72908
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer is (C).
This stimulus starts off with a classic "some people say something, but they're wrong, and here's why" structure, but it somewhat complicates the structure with two conclusions. Our Economist says that her colleagues think interest rates should be lowered to stimulate the economy. She says the economy is growing at a sustainable rate, and so no stimulation is required. That is already a complete argument: the premise is "the economy is growing at a sustainable rate" and the conclusion is "no stimulation is needed." From there, however, the author goes one step further. Having already determined that the economy needs no stimulation, she then says that not only are her colleagues wrong about lowering interest rates for that purpose, but that "there is no reason to lower interest rates further." That's an incredibly strong conclusion, and one that would require very powerful evidence. The flaw, then, is that our author has greatly exaggerated the strength of her evidence and drawn a conclusion that goes much too far. This is a "some evidence" flaw, wherein the author has presented some evidence against lowering interest rates, and has used that bit of evidence to claim that there can be no reason at all to do so. We should be looking for an answer that captures this idea of taking her evidence too far and drawing a conclusion that is much stronger than the evidence can support.
Answer choice (A): While this answer does describe a flaw that is sometimes found on the LSAT, it is not the flaw in this case. When this flaw occurs, it is in the form of "experts say X is true, and so it must be true." Our author IS the expert, but she does not rely on her expertise alone but instead relies on the one bit of evidence that she presented.
Answer choice (B): This answer looks a bit like a reversed cause and effect answer. At the very least, it is describing a problem with causal reasoning. As the flaw here was not causal, but was about going too far with some evidence, it is not the correct answer.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer. The Economist gave us one reason that supports the idea that we don't need to lower interest rates, and she presumes that there could be no other reason for doing so. Having eliminated what she presumes to be the only reason, she concludes improperly that there can be no reason.
Answer choice (D): Beware this trap answer! It sounds enough like our prephrase, and like the correct answer, that it could cause some confusion, but recall that the author isn't arguing about HOW to stimulate the economy, but about WHETHER the economy needs such stimulation. Our author might be fine with there being many other ways to stimulate the economy, but she would still say that there is no reason to lower interest rates because no such stimulation is needed.
Answer choice (E): A correct answer to a Flaw in the Reasoning question must do two things. First, because this question type is in the "Prove" family, like Must Be True Questions, it must describe something that actually happened in the stimulus (a variation on the Fact Test). Second, the thing that it describes must be a flaw. It does no good to describe something that happened but which was perfectly acceptable! This answer fails the first part of the test, because our author did not draw any conclusion about what would happen if interest rates were lowered. Since it describes something that did not occur, it cannot be a correct answer to this Flaw question.
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer is (C).
This stimulus starts off with a classic "some people say something, but they're wrong, and here's why" structure, but it somewhat complicates the structure with two conclusions. Our Economist says that her colleagues think interest rates should be lowered to stimulate the economy. She says the economy is growing at a sustainable rate, and so no stimulation is required. That is already a complete argument: the premise is "the economy is growing at a sustainable rate" and the conclusion is "no stimulation is needed." From there, however, the author goes one step further. Having already determined that the economy needs no stimulation, she then says that not only are her colleagues wrong about lowering interest rates for that purpose, but that "there is no reason to lower interest rates further." That's an incredibly strong conclusion, and one that would require very powerful evidence. The flaw, then, is that our author has greatly exaggerated the strength of her evidence and drawn a conclusion that goes much too far. This is a "some evidence" flaw, wherein the author has presented some evidence against lowering interest rates, and has used that bit of evidence to claim that there can be no reason at all to do so. We should be looking for an answer that captures this idea of taking her evidence too far and drawing a conclusion that is much stronger than the evidence can support.
Answer choice (A): While this answer does describe a flaw that is sometimes found on the LSAT, it is not the flaw in this case. When this flaw occurs, it is in the form of "experts say X is true, and so it must be true." Our author IS the expert, but she does not rely on her expertise alone but instead relies on the one bit of evidence that she presented.
Answer choice (B): This answer looks a bit like a reversed cause and effect answer. At the very least, it is describing a problem with causal reasoning. As the flaw here was not causal, but was about going too far with some evidence, it is not the correct answer.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer. The Economist gave us one reason that supports the idea that we don't need to lower interest rates, and she presumes that there could be no other reason for doing so. Having eliminated what she presumes to be the only reason, she concludes improperly that there can be no reason.
Answer choice (D): Beware this trap answer! It sounds enough like our prephrase, and like the correct answer, that it could cause some confusion, but recall that the author isn't arguing about HOW to stimulate the economy, but about WHETHER the economy needs such stimulation. Our author might be fine with there being many other ways to stimulate the economy, but she would still say that there is no reason to lower interest rates because no such stimulation is needed.
Answer choice (E): A correct answer to a Flaw in the Reasoning question must do two things. First, because this question type is in the "Prove" family, like Must Be True Questions, it must describe something that actually happened in the stimulus (a variation on the Fact Test). Second, the thing that it describes must be a flaw. It does no good to describe something that happened but which was perfectly acceptable! This answer fails the first part of the test, because our author did not draw any conclusion about what would happen if interest rates were lowered. Since it describes something that did not occur, it cannot be a correct answer to this Flaw question.
