#21 - Some government economists view their home countries

[evelineliu]

Hi Bonnie,

In this question, "Just as" introduces an analogy. The analogy is about how physicists learn the shortcomings of a mechanics based on idealizations such as perfectly frictionless bodies (that are immune to outside influence), then government economists must also learn that there are shortcomings to a system based on idealizations that the home economy is immune to outside influence.

Hope that helps!
Eveline

[sunshine123]

Howdy!

In my mind, the analogy used in this example is not particularly fundamental to the argument; that is, it does not really function as the premise that the conclusion derives from. It may have played such a role IF the author had said, "SINCE physicists learn so and so, SO TOO government economists should learn so and so." However, the argument does no such thing. It merely states, "just as physicists do so and so, governemnt's do too" sort of as a way of providing and example or something like that. That said, the premise that serves as a launchpad, as it were , for the argument's conclusion is the statement, "economies are always open systems."

Does that sound right? Thank you in advance.

Best,
Sunshine123

[Robert Carroll]

Sunshine123,

I think that's right. If the first part of the last sentence were removed, it wouldn't affect the logical structure of the argument.

Robert Carroll

[teddykim100]

Bonnie, full disclosure: I am not a tutor, and I have not even taken an official test yet, so you may take everything I say as a grain of salt.

That being said, I think I can help a bit with your question.

When the author throws the physics mumbo jumbo at us, I think they do a good job of disguising it as support/another part of the premise. However, there is no real support offered for the conclusion here.

If I tell you that, "Just as cars need fuel to survive, you SHOULD eat broccoli because it gives you nutrients", is my support the "cars" portion, or the "it gives you nutrients" portion?

It would be the "nutrients" portion because that is what is actually giving us support to reach the conclusion "you should eat broccoli". Hopefully my analogy is a good enough one to show that the "cars" portion is just an ANALOGY, and not actual support.

Yes, in real life, we use analogies to support our claims all the time, but in a logical sense, this doesn't really serve our argument.

PS staff feel free to let me know if I am leading Bonnie on the wrong track here!!

[Robert Carroll]

teddykim100,

What you said seems good, good job!

Robert Carroll

[Noodles93]

Premises: EESI ELBB
(this is the contrapositive of what the premises basically say, that if economists aren't looking beyond borders, then they aren't taking into account every significant influence)

I didn't connect the dots that "taking into account every significant influence" is a basic translation of the premises. This language threw me off because I thought it was going too far, but then again, the question stem says "if assumed." So if we assume every significant influence is taken into account, that also covers international trade, which is one significant influence that requires economists to look outside the borders. So answer choice A's wording is acceptable. Is that right?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Noodles,

That is correct. Because this is Justify question rather than an Assumption question, what we need is an answer that when added to the premises will prove the conclusion. It is completely fine if the correct answer is stronger or broader in scope than what we need to prove the conclusion as long as it does prove the conclusion. It is also completely fine if the correct answer to a Justify question has "extra" information that you don't need as long as it also has the information that you do need to prove the conclusion.

(This is not true for Assumption questions, so it is critical to correctly identify these two question types as right answers for Justify questions can be wrong answers for Assumption questions and vice versa).