Q10 - Economist: The economy seems to be

[carly.applebaum]

i understand why E is correct...but why is B wrong? since the stimulus asks about the premise (which supports the conclusion), wouldn't the premise need to be true in order for the conclusion to be true? or am i mixing this up with conditional logic?

thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good question!

This one asks us to identify the role of a specific claim within the argument. The argument is structured in the following manner: primary conclusion, premise, then intermediate conclusion.

The question asks us identify the role of the second claim, so we're looking for an answer choice that says that the claim serves as a premise. Answer choice (E) says just that.

Incorrect Answers

(A) fails to incorporate the intermediate conclusion. Some arguments are structured as phenomenon/explanation structures, but those would not involve an intermediate conclusion.
(B) is too strong. The conclusion does not need the evidence to be true in order for the conclusion to be true, possibly for some other reason. Sometimes there are multiple sufficient justifications for conclusions.
(C) mixes up the roles. The claim is not an inference, nor is it drawn from the first sentence. Instead it is used in support of the first sentence.
(D) mixes up the roles. The claim is not an inference, nor is it drawn from the last claim, but rather is used to support the last claim.

[自以为非]

Good question! (B) has two mistakes. First of all, it does not show what kind of role of the sentence in question plays. Secondly, Argument is only about valid or invalid, not necessary need that its premise are truth in real world. For example,
Premise 1 : ALL CAT CAN FLY
Premise 2 : TRUMP IS A CAT
Conclusion: Trump can fly.
As you see, nobody can deny it's not a valid argument, but we all know the premises are not true in real world.
hope it helps