Q10 - Economist: If the belief were

[peg_city]

I didn't like any of the answer and picked b, grudgingly.

Why is A right?

Thanks

[hanselle.c]

This stimulus diagrams as:

Impersonal Social Forces (ISF)
Job loss (JL)
Growth in Demand for Gov't Control (GC)
Economic Disaster (ED)

ISL -> JL -> GC -> ED

A is correct b/c 'increased knowledge' is effectively the same as a "belief [becoming] widespread" that losing a job is not due to Personal Shortcomings, but rather Impersonal Social Forces (ISF). If certain held beliefs about the causes behind job losses (in this case ISF) are known, then it would follow that ISF -> ED.

[maryadkins]

A is correct b/c 'increased knowledge' is effectively the same as a "belief [becoming] widespread" that losing a job is not due to Personal Shortcomings, but rather Impersonal Social Forces (ISF).

Great explanation, but I just want to elaborate on/clarify the quoted part above.

Because we are told that the social forces theory of job loss IS CORRECT (see the stimulus), increased knowledge of "the causes of job loss" amounts to: social forces. So the diagram posted below works.

(B) is irrelevant. The stimulus does not say or suggest that belief in one's own abilities is the solution to fighting social forces.

(C) is not in the stimulus.

(D) is like (C)--not there.

(E) is irrelevant. The stimulus mentions nothing about what people should feel responsible for when it comes to economic disasters or military invasions.

[andrew-burtlow]

When I read the stimulus, I thought the parenthetical statement was referring to the idea that the belief was indeed becoming widespread, not that the belief is in fact true. That's why I picked D. Guess I need to read more carefully.

[joncornfield5]

I think this one of the most frustrating LSAT questions ive done, period.

How, in the lsat world, does belief equate to knowledge?

It seems as if the test wants us to take the Economists reasoning ("which is surely correct") as fact--- I just don't see why we should be able to make this leap. I see why A is right, especially because all the other answers suck, but every time I read this question (like 20 times) I feel more and more like the lsat is making an unwarranted scope shift. Really, A is the only one with a valid inference, but as soon as I read 'knowledge' I chalked it up as incorrect--

I dont know, I spent like two minutes on this question, then chose E, stupid choice. AGHH

I really just don't like any of the answers to this question, and im just super frustrated about it, and venting that frustration.

[chunsunb]

In response to the previous replier, who said: "It seems as if the test wants us to take the Economists reasoning ("which is surely correct") as fact--- I just don't see why we should be able to make this leap."

The question explicitly states that we are assuming that the economist's statements are true.

Hope this helps!

[boxofrain123]

Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that for (A) to be fully supported, *demand* for government control must translate into government control itself?
If people found out the cause (belief becomes widespread/knowledge increases), then they'd demand more government control. But it's the government control itself that causes economic disaster. So we'd have to assume that demand of govt control equates to govt control.
Does this go back to it not being a true inference question, so the correct answer doesn't have to be true, just best supported? But why doesn't this make (A) out of scope, since the passage says nothing about how often or if the demand for govt control actually means the govt ends up in control and thus economic disaster is caused?
I actually just re-read (A), and now see "could" cause. This makes more sense since a demand for govt control "could" lead to govt control. Oh well, I'll post anyway in anyone else runs into this problem.

[lizbiz840]

On my timed way through this test I originally marked the answer as B, but upon review under untimed conditions I noticed that B says "An individual's belief...is the ONLY reliable protection..."

Personally, I had a big problem with the word ONLY especially considering there could be other ways to protect against impersonal social forces. That was my reasoning anyway.

[dontmesswmeow]

[color=#0000FF][color=#0000FF][color=#0000FF][color=#0000FF]I was also having problem with the ""knowledge" part in choice (A) as compared to the economist's comment on the "belief" which seems worrisome for her/him at the stimulus.

However, now I see that s/he does say in the stimulus that the belief that the cause of one's dismissal is not due to one's shortcomings but actually due to some macroeconomic factor IS *******************SURELY CORRECT****************. Therefore, it seems (to me) fair enough to reason that the belief of the cause, at this point, becomes a "correct" knowledge on the cause in question. And so (A) becomes a fair conclusion to be supported by the economist's statement that talks about all the heck of things to that such belief eventually would lead to an economic disaster.

Also, why (B) is untrue? let me clarify on this really quick because I also got this wrong as at my first shot.

The statement is just not talking about or giving support/information about how we can stand up against the macroeconomic factor (the impersonal social forces) which is beyond one's personal ability as stated verbatim---unlike what (B) says. Belief in individual's own ability is the "only" protection against the impersonal social forces? while saying that the cause of the job loss is not due to one's ability shortcoming but the macroecon?

Also, (C) can't be right---I'm mentioning this because I thought it could be another tempting answer as well.

Economist's statement seems to be able to evince that the government shouldn't be big, or even simpler, its control is bad since it will cause an econ disaster.

However, the economist addressed the "extensive" control, not that the government should "NEVER" interfere with the economic forces, first and foremost. He doesn't seem entirely laissez faire for this reason, unlike (C) concludes.

[/color][/color][/color][/color]