Q19 - Economist: Our economy's weakness

[chike_eze]

This one was tough for me. I had to guess during timed PT, and even during my review, I wasn't 100% confident in choosing the correct answer (D). I would appreciate a detailed breakdown of the argument and selection of the correct answer choice (D).

Follow-up question: do you think it is possible to answer this question with confidence without diagramming?

[maryadkins]

Here is how I diagrammed this question:

PREMISE: high price of goods + services --> reluctance to spend --> a weak economy

-->

CONCLUSION: gov't should lower income taxes to improve the economy

The gap is between lowering income taxes and people's reluctance to spend. (D) bridges this gap.

(A) We don't need to assume this. This is reading the causation in the argument backwards. We already know that high prices of goods and services leads to reluctance to spend.

(B) We don't need average income to increase. Even if it did, would people be less reluctant to spend? We don't know.

(C) But will they be reluctant to spend or not?

(E) We aren't worried about gov't spending. We're worried about people's reluctance to spend.

[pateljay.osu]

Isn't the premise:
"a weak economy ----> reluctance to spend"?


Because, to my understanding, only then does D bridge the gap.

D says: lower tax ----> less reluctance.

So,

lower tax ---> less reluctance ---> not weak economy
(conclusion)

[thegreatjohnroberts]

It's true that answer choice D only works if the premise is taken as "a weak economy ---> reluctance to spend"

However, saying that "our weak economy is a direct result of consumers' continued reluctance to spend" doesn't lead to that rule. That, at least, is why I am confused here.

For instance, I could say "A black eye is a direct result of being punched in the eye." But we wouldn't write that as

"black eye ---> being punched"

because that would mean that being punched is necessary for getting a black eye. The original statement leaves room for other possible causes (which may or may not be present in the current situation).

In addition, if we look at this question from a cause/effect perspective, (i.e. reluctance to spend causes a weak economy), we should definitely write it as:

"reluctance to spend ---> weak economy"

which reflects the fact that removing the cause doesn't logically remove the effect.

For example: "My feeling cold is a direct result of being outside in the winter without a jacket"

This doesn't mean that if I stop being outside with without a jacket that I will stop feeling cold (which would be analogous to eliminating consumer reluctance to spend and expecting the economy to get better). I might go back inside to an apartment with no heat or jump into a pool of ice water. Better yet, I might still feel cold even after putting on a jacket.

In the end, it makes more sense to write the being cold example as:

"outside without jacket ---> feeling cold"

With respect to Question 19, just because consumers are no longer reluctant to spend doesn't guarantee that the economy improves. There could be another dampener on the economy that materializes after consumer reluctance is reduced OR there may be some irreversible aspect to the weakened economy such that removing its cause doesn't guarantee the economy's improvement.

Could you please help us with an explanation that gets around these problems?

[sengdykes]

Hello LSAT Masters,

I am having some difficulty diagramming the first sentence in the stimulus: "Our economy's weakness is the direct result of consumer's continued reluctance to spend.."

I initially thought a reluctance to spend guarantees a weak economy, though I am not convinced hat is correct. After analyzing the answer choices, it seems weak economy --> reluctance to spend.

Any clarification would be much appreciated.

Thank you.

[ohthatpatrick]

I would probably not call the first sentence a conditional. It's a specific description of causality.

I can say "Tom Brady's 4th touchdown pass won the Superbowl."

Even though that DOES have certainty, it's not a rule or a universal or a guarantee or a requirement.

There IS no timeless truth to this first sentence. It's very historically contingent, if that makes any sense. The author isn't saying this cause/effect relationship always holds.

That said, sometimes it's useful for us to sketch out an author's "chain of causality", which would essentially look like conditional logic, but we would write it out knowing we are just showing ourselves the causal chain the author describes.

High priced goods ---caused--> reluctance to spend ---caused--> weak economy
also
the fact that avg incomes are lower than 5 yrs ago ---caused--> reluctance to spend

If we wanted to bundle that all together:
High price and lower avg inc --> reluctance to spend --> weak economy

[VendelaG465]

Would choice D not be considered an illegal reversal ?

[ohthatpatrick]

The conclusion the author is trying to prove is:
if lower income taxes, then economy improves.

Picture a logical conveyor belt that says:
if Lower income taxes --------------then eventually-------------> economy improves.

We might start to build that argument with an idea that connects to the front:
If we lower income taxes, then rich people will be happy.

in which case we would need a link that works like this:
.................................................if rich people are happy, then economy improves
to derive:
lower income taxes --------- eventually leads to-------------> economy improves.

Put another way, the conclusion is trying to get from
A -----------------------------> Z

If the evidence we're given is
A ------> B,
then to complete the conclusion's journey, we need
............. B ------------------> Z

On the other hand, as it's gonna do in Q19, we have that same conclusion,
A -----------------------------> Z

But the evidence we're given is
..................... Y -----------> Z
then to complete the conclusion's journey, we need
A -------------> Y


====== in q19 =======

Our conclusion is trying to ride this logic conveyor belt:
Lower income taxes ---------eventually leads to-------------> economy improves.

The idea we're given in the premise is that
................... if we got rid of reluctance to spend, our economy would improve
We need choice (D):
If lower income taxes, no reluctance to spend

to derive:
if lower income taxes ------------------------------------------------> economy improves

[MayaM405]

Thanks for the great explanations!

I'm curious about the part of the argument that says "This reluctance is exacerbated by the face that the average income is significantly lower than it was five years ago."

While I boiled it down to the right argument core, this sentence tripped me up quite a bit and used up some extra time. I'm having a hard time determining if it is just a throw away or could have a role in determining answer choices, and how to determine that as efficiently as possible.

Thanks!

[MosheM795]

Could you further explain different ways why and how I can go about eliminating answer choice C? I am not 100% sure how to eliminate this answer.

Thanks!

[AnnaT620]

The above notes that D helps to bridge the gap between the premise and conclusion - as this is a necessary assumption question, is this required? Is there another reason that D is the correct answer?

I picked B for this - and can see how this is incorrect, as it does not address reluctance to spend, but not sure why the negation of this wouldn't break the argument? If consumer spending does not increase, the average income will not increase"

How would you correctly negate the if/then statements in these questions?

Thanks very much!

[JeremyK460]

Approach:
When I see causality like this, I think of whether they can be associated / linked. The first and second premise can be linked together like this…

People have relatively less money → People don’t want to spend as much → Economy is weakened (exposes economical weakness).

The conclusion is…

People have a little more money → Economy is not weakened (economy is improved).

People spending more obviously improves the economy, but will having more money (by means of lowering income taxes) mean more money will be spent? This is the idea of the assumption.

Assumption:
Lowering income taxes would cause people to spend more.

Analysis:
It must be true that lowering income taxes would cause people to spend more.
Lowering income taxes can’t spark something else that would cause people to end up with less money (to spend).

Answer Choices:
(A) The logic of the argument doesn’t require that goods and services increase or decrease, as long as people seemingly have enough money to spend.

(B) Like the previous answer, the increase or decrease of average income because of an increase or decrease of consumer spending isn’t required by the logic. The logic concerns itself with the opposite of this, if anything. The point of the argument is that people with more money will spend it.

(C) If income taxes stay the say, or increase, then people will earn less and less. This just seems either restated or implied. I think the assumption is the opposite, but also could just be bi-causal.

(D) This feels more like it. Having less reluctance to do something means you are a little more willing to spend.

(E) Government spending isn’t really relevant in terms of consequence. Government spending doesn’t need to be established.

‘High Priced Goods & Services’ Isn’t Essential:
Factors such as high priced goods and services, because this is a necessary assumption question, are non-essential items to the argument’s logic. It’s basically saying ‘factors such as X can cause Y’. It’s basically saying some factors like X can cause something that I’ve already said is happening. Hours of practice causes LeBron James to improve on his skill. Factors like having a basketball allowed LeBron to practice for hours. Having a basketball isn’t sufficient from a conditional or causal standpoint to have LeBron practice for hours. Having proper hydration is a factor, having a space that makes for training is a factor.