#14 - Jones: A budget deficit is good for the country's finances

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A).

In this Method of Reasoning question, we see Espinosa responding to Jones'...unique argument. Jones argues that a federal deficit is good for the country's finances because it discourages excessive government spending. Jones makes no mention of the downsides of a federal deficit, like inflation, an inability to pay back foreign creditors, etc.

Espinosa responds with an analogy: a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect. She argues that Jones' proposal is like thinking that reaching the credit limit on your credit cards is a good thing because it discourages excessive spending. While she concedes that doing so would in fact stop you from spending excessively, it's still a bad financial practice. For example, maxing out your credit cards will adversely impact your credit score, making it harder to open a mortgage, buy a car, etc.

So, to answer this question, we should look for an answer that describes the analogous style of Espinosa's response.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Well, looks like we didn't have to go too far! Espinosa responds by providing an argument that, while analogous, is clearly fallacious.

Answer choice (B): This is code for a circular reasoning, a flaw which Espinosa does not commit.

Answer choice (C): Empirical evidence is information collected through observation or experiment, which Espinosa does not provide.

Answer choice (D): Espinosa never does this, although based on Jones' reasoning skills it wouldn't surprise me if Jones' personal finances were in shambles

Answer choice (E): Espinosa never says that Jones' evidence is scant, but rather that she disagrees with his conclusion.

[gwlsathelp]

What is the fallacious reasoning in Espinosa called?

[Adam Tyson]

Espinosa is saying that it would be incorrect to conclude that maxing out your credit limit is good idea. Thinking that it IS a good idea is what Espinosa argues is fallacious. If you're looking for the common name of that type of flaw, I suppose I would call it a "some evidence" flaw. Someone who thinks maxing out your credit limit is a good idea is basing it on some positive evidence, that it discourages you from going beyond that point; Espinosa is saying that even though there is some evidence to support that position, the position is nevertheless false because of other reasons.

[fortunateking]

Can someone pls explain why (C) and (E) wrong? Like what is an empirical evidence? Espinosa's evidence sounds empirical to me, as he's talking about sth. as poor financial management.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Sure, fortunateking.

Answer choice (C) is incorrect because the author doesn't offer facts or truths about the world that undermine the conclusion that a deficit is good for a government's finances. It doesn't show that the credit rating drops or provide another useful fact about why Espinosa disagrees with Jones. Instead, he creates a potential scenario that he can use to compare situations. It's an argument by analogy, and that's why answer choice (A) is correct.

Answer choice (E) is incorrect because at no point does Espinoza accuse Jones of overgeneralizing. He doesn't say that Jones' arguments only apply in certain situations or under specific conditions. For an answer choice to be correct in method of reasoning, you need to be able to point to the parts of the stimulus where the author actually does the thing described.

Hope that helps!