Q11 - Which one of the following, if

[noah]

The conclusion of this argument is that the cause of the recession is NOT that there was a lot of household debt. Why? Because though there is a way that high household debt could have caused the recession - by that debt being held by poor people, while rich people, though holding lots of assets, don't spend more and more - this particular arrangement was not the situation. (The argument explains that can't be the situation because who's going to lend money to a poor person!?)

Now we have to weaken this argument. Generally, to weaken an argument, we have to invalidate an assumption. So what's the gap here? If you don't see it, try this argument:

People say that icy roads caused the truckers to stop deliveries to LSATville.That could be true, the roads were icy, and if a truck slides off the road into a telephone poll, it could be real bad and thus truckers would not want to drive on such a road. But there were no telephone polls on the road to LSATville, so the icy roads must not be the reason the truckers wouldn't drive the road.

What's the problem? Couldn't there be another way that icy roads caused the truckers to stop making deliveries? Maybe they weren't scared of the telephone polls but they were scared of the ditches. We've all seen the show about ice truckers, right?

Similarly, just because we know that way X that household debt could have caused the recession (poor holding the debt, rich holding the assets and not spending more), does that mean that debt surely was not the cause? Maybe there's another kind of debt that would cause the recession. So, the assumption is that the poor holding the debt and rich holding the assets is the ONLY way that debt could cause the recession. (At the core of this, we're back to this fallacy: If X -> Y, and if we don't have X, we must not have Y. To fix this, we need that X is the only way to cause Y - i.e., poor holding the debt etc. is the only way that debt could cause the recession.)

(A) provides the alternate way that debt could have caused the recession: debt held by the middle class, and a reduction in that class' spending, and voila...recession!

(B) is tempting, but the argument doesn't require the debt to be higher than the assets for the debt to cause the recession.

(C) is also tempting since this is a complex problem. However, (C) provides weak information - they somewhat decreased their spending. Furthermore, and more importantly, if they decreased their spending for some other reason than the recession, that strengthens the argument, which concludes that the recession was not caused by high household debt.

(D) is after the fact - we want to know what causes the recession, now what folks do during one.

(E) is tricky - we don't care which category is most likely to affect the economy. We're interested in whether this category of debt did or did not do it!

[cyruswhittaker]

Thanks for this explanation. I had a difficult time on this problem and the analogous argument helped to better understand the underlying structure.

[alovitt]

Hey Noah, your explanation was very helpful and I got 10 and 11 right, but they took me longer to figure out than I would have wanted, so I have a couple of questions if you don't mind. During my initial read I didn't even think about this being a false dilemma, but then it occured to me after seeing A in 11 that there is of course a middle class too. Before looking at 10 even, I thought the author was assuming that affluent people being in debt is not enough to cause the recession. So, I see that this is basically reflected in A for 10, since high levels of household debt would include affluent households... but this is asking for a conclusion rather than an assumption. Was the author not really assuming this? Because an assumption isn't merely an unstated conclusion, but an unstated premise, right? I guess I am also curious, for 11, as to whether a choice that said "Prior to the recession, affluent households owed enough debt that they had begun to decrease spending" would weaken the argument.

[noah]

Best questions I've had all week.

Before looking at 10 even, I thought the author was assuming that affluent people being in debt is not enough to cause the recession. So, I see that this is basically reflected in A for 10, since high levels of household debt would include affluent households... but this is asking for a conclusion rather than an assumption. Was the author not really assuming this? Because an assumption isn't merely an unstated conclusion, but an unstated premise, right?

You're correct to be wary of this, and for exactly the reason you state: assumptions are unstated. The author is concluding that the debt--which must have been held by the rich--didn't cause it.

What's tricky is that the conclusion is broad--debt didn't cause the recession--but there's a lot of detail. In short, we get a lot of detail about one way it could of happened and then how that way didn't. The assumption is that there isn't some other way that debt worked it's evil ways and caused a recession.

I guess I am also curious, for 11, as to whether a choice that said "Prior to the recession, affluent households owed enough debt that they had begun to decrease spending" would weaken the argument.

Thankfully, I don't have to write LSAT questions--because it's tough! I'd say this does weaken the argument. It suggests a way that debt could have caused the recession. Good thinking! However, it seems a bit un-LSAT like in that the argument hints at how the rich behaved with lots of debt (they failed to increase spending) and your answer basically says that what was said earlier wasn't true. Maybe something a bit more LSAT-like would be that the rich not increasing their spending has a recession-causing effect. That accepts the premise, but adds a new consequence to it.

Thanks for asking those questions.

[ernienafe]

Another argument in question is that whether debt is causing the recession or the recession is causing the more people to own the debt.

[pbookworm]

Another thing to add -

(C) is also wrong, because it states that low-income households decreased their spending during the recent recession.

Well, which household wouldn't? The conclusion is concerned with what caused or didn't cause the recent recession, not what happens during the recession.

[JacquelineP303]

I view E as a slight 180, strengthening the argument that household debt was not a cause of the recession because it is the category of debt least likely to affect the economy. However, if this were a strengthen question instead of weaken, would answer choice E still be incorrect?

My thought is yes because even if household debt is the category of debt least likely to affect the economy, it could still affect the economy more than other factors, i.e. war, change of government, etc. Additionally, maybe other types of debt affect the economy in an extreme way and household debt only affects the economy in a very strong way (household debt would still be the type of debt least likely to affect the economy, but it still affects the economy). Since we do not know the affect of other types of debt have on the economy, we cannot draw the conclusion that household debt does not affect the economy at all (that would be assuming an absolute conclusion from a relative premise).

[ohthatpatrick]

I agree with your first thought. (E) strengthens.

Strengthen / weaken doesn’t mean “prove / refute”. It just means “make it seem more plausible / less plausible”.

The author is arguing that “household debt isn’t what caused the recession”.

So hearing that “household debt is actually the least likely type of debt to affect the economy” increases the plausibility of that claim.

It would be an unlikely correct answer for strengthen, since it doesn’t have anything to do with the argument, with the reasoning connection between premise and conclusion.

But if a claim increases the plausibility of the conclusion, it certainly strengthens at least somewhat.

Hope this helps.

[YiX773]

I agree with your first thought. (E) strengthens.

Strengthen / weaken doesn’t mean “prove / refute”. It just means “make it seem more plausible / less plausible”.

The author is arguing that “household debt isn’t what caused the recession”.

So hearing that “household debt is actually the least likely type of debt to affect the economy” increases the plausibility of that claim.

It would be an unlikely correct answer for strengthen, since it doesn’t have anything to do with the argument, with the reasoning connection between premise and conclusion.

But if a claim increases the plausibility of the conclusion, it certainly strengthens at least somewhat.

Hope this helps.

Subtle!
I think this part is amazing:

It would be an unlikely correct answer for strengthen, since it doesn’t have anything to do with the argument, with the reasoning connection between premise and conclusion.

So I can't choose it in a "which one of the following will strengthen the argument" question, can I?