Q14 - The economy is doing badly

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This one teaches us a lot about inference questions. Look at the difference between the following two question stems

1. If each of the statements above is true, which one of the following must also be true?

2. Which one of the following inferences is most strongly supported by the information above?

Sometimes in the second phrasing the stimulus is not a series of facts, but rather an argument. It's not frequent, but it does appear consistently in the logical reasoning section. If this happens, treat the question like an Assumption question. Bridge the gap between evidence and the conclusion. For, if the conclusion is going to be true, the assumption must be true.

Evidence
----------
We have a real estate slump.
Car sales are at their lowest in years.

Conclusion
-----------
The economy is bad


Put into formal logic

RES + CSL
-----------
EB


if the argument were to look like

A
---
B

The assumption would be A --> B

In this case the assumption is

RES + CSL --> EB

by contrapositive

~EB --> ~RES or ~CSL

back into English

If the economy is in a healthy state (not bad), then it is unlikely that the real estate and car sales markets are both in a slump - answer choice (D).

(A) is missing a reference to the real estate market. We know that the two imply a bad economy, not that low car sales implies a bad economy.
(B) mistakes a necessary for sufficient condition. The relationship is backwards.
(C) negates the assumption that relates one of the premises with the conclusion.
(D) is the contrapositive of the assumption bridging the gap between the evidence and the conclusion of the argument.
(E) mistakes a necessary for sufficient condition. The relationship is backwards.

[juliehuh]

i see how d is correct but i do not see how C is not correct. the author does say had either one or the other no happened, this would be consistent with the economy as a whole being healthy. By conditional:
~res or ~ csl then economy as whole being healthy work?

then isn't a restate of that? or is C wrong since it says the real estate market is healthy, instead of not being in a slump?

also i am a bit confused on how to treat this as an assumption question... isn't this a must be true question?

[smlawler]

I have tried this question twice, and chose A and D, respectively. After reviewing the quesiton and the answer key, I'm not sure why B is the right answer. I would appreciate some feedback on this one.

Thanks!

[skapur777]

I got this one correct, but I'm a little shaky on the line "had either one or the other pheno. failed to occur, this would be consistent with the economy as a whole being quite healthy."

I figure this meant:

~RES or ~CSS> HE

~HE>RES and CSS

But answer choice D reverses my first conditional statement here (and thus the contrapositive). I was wondering what parts of the lines quoted above flesh out the sufficient/necessary conditions?

[giladedelman]

Yeah, I remember this one being a real head-scratcher for me, too! You're right that it does come down to this issue.

Here's how I look at it. When it says "this would be consistent with the economy as a whole being healthy," that means, this fits the attributes of a healthy economy. It doesn't guarantee a healthy economy. In other words, if the economy is healthy, this is what we should expect. That would mean the statement is more like

Healthy economy --> no real estate slump or no low car sales

So I have it as the reverse of what you put.

And that explains why (D) is correct: if the economy is healthy, we don't have both a real estate and a car sales slump. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense to say that a lack of one of these factors is consistent with a healthy economy.

(A) is incorrect because the argument is that the occurrence of both factors implies a bad economy, not just one.

(B) is reversed logic.

(C) is dangerous, because if we reverse the statement discussed above, it looks like it should be true.

(E) is the 100% reversal of the argument.

Does that answer your question? Very confusing problem.

[yama_sekander]

While i got this answer correct, and i understand the correct diagram, i am still lost in how to determine the correct sufficient/necessary logic behind this question. i guess what i am asking is what indicator words (or other indications) did you use to determine what was the sufficient and what was the necessary?


originally, this is how i interpreted the diagram.
" had either one or the other phenomenon failed to occur, this would be consistent with the economy being healthy"
~RES or ~CSL --- ~EB

also, i felt the next sentence signaled a conditional diagram as well: "but their occurrence together makes it quite possible that my conclusion is correct (that the economy is doing badly)

i interpreted "makes it quite possible" as a sufficient indicator

RES and CSL--- EB

[giladedelman]

Well, strictly speaking, there are no conditional statements here, because we don't have any absolutes. So there are no real conditional "triggers" here. In fact, that's what makes this such a difficult question: the phrase "would be consistent with" is not something I've seen used in this way on other LR questions, so it really demands that we think it through.

In this case, I asked myself, what does it mean to say X would be consistent with Y? Sometimes it's helpful to use a more understandable real-world analogy. For example, being intolerant of gluten is consistent with having celiac disease. So if I were going to try to turn that into a conditional statement, would it be "If you are intolerant of gluten, you have celiac disease," or "If you have celiac disease, you are intolerant of gluten"? It's definitely the second one! So that makes me more confident in my judgment. "X consistent with Y" means "If you have Y, you should expect to have X as well."

Does that answer your question?

[shaynfernandez]

Completely undecided on C, D and E. I read all of the above and when I first did this problem, choose C simply because of time constraints. However, I still don't see the difference between these answers they all seem to be stating what the argument is just in different terms, or in other words all three seem correct.
C. "If the real estate market is healthy, then it is likely that the economy as a whole is healthy" I get this from "...had either one failed to occur, this would be consistent with the economy as a whole being healthy". I see an exact correlation.

D. This also seems very evident from reading the exact same premise.

E. Same location, this seemed like the least likely to me just because of the wording.

If I could get some kind of help, to how me the flaw in my reasoning i feel as though i must be missing something here, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

[joseph.m.kirby]

The main argument, as pointed out earlier, is

(1) real estate slump has been around for some time
(2) car sales are at their lowest in years
-----
So, the economy is doing badly

Besides that, we are told about

~(1) | ~(2) being able to coexist, or be consistent with, a healthy economy as a whole. We cannot assume that ~(1) | ~(2) makes a healthy economy likely. We cannot assume: ~(1) | ~(2) --> healthy economy, or ~healthy economy --> (1) & (2)


(C) is wrong because it assumes what it shouldn't: ~(1) --> economy as a whole is healthy (likely)
(E) is wrong because it assumes what it shouldn't: ~healthy economy --> (1) & (2)

[patrice.antoine]

(C) discusses the economy as a whole. Never mentioned!

But the stim addresses this, Matt.


My train of thought was if either one is not in a slump, it is consistent with the economy as a whole being healthy. Real estate not being in a slump (healthy) would be consistent with the economy as a whole being healthy.

The opposite of failing to occur is healthy, right?

Any insight appreciated!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

(C) discusses the economy as a whole. Never mentioned!

But the stim addresses this, Matt.


My train of thought was if either one is not in a slump, it is consistent with the economy as a whole being healthy. Real estate not being in a slump (healthy) would be consistent with the economy as a whole being healthy.

The opposite of failing to occur is healthy, right?

Any insight appreciated!

You're right! I really shouldn't have dismissed the issue of "the economy as a whole." It is directly addressed, and answer choice (C) represents a negation of the relationship between the evidence and the conclusion.

Real estate market in a slump
---------------------------------
Economy is doing badly

Assumption: if the real estate market is in a slump, then the economy is doing badly (remember, this is neglecting the other premise).

Even neglecting the other premise, answer choice (C) negates the relationship here.

Hope that helps!

[mitrakhanom1]

I'm still confused how to diagram or reason through the logic. I often get confused on necessary to sufficient and sufficient to necessary flaws. I don't understand how you guys diagrammed it, because I got the reverse:

-RE or -CS ---> HE
-HE---> RE and CS

Can somebody please explain the diagramming and the logical steps you to place each piece in the diagram? Thanks.

[olaizola.mariana]

Still confused by this one, and agree with those that chose answer (C).

Could someone shed some further light into the relevant difference between these two statements?

From original statement: "had either one or the other phenomenon failed to occur [paraphrase: had the real estate market not been in a slump or car sales not been at their lowest in years], this would be consistent with the economy as a whole being healthy"
Answer (C): if the real estate market is healthy [paraphrase: not in a slump], then it is likely that the economy as a whole is healthy.

To me, these are extremely similar. Does the answer merely lie in the difference between "consistent with" and "likely that?"

[ohthatpatrick]

Let's not use much conditional logic here, since there are no real conditionals.

Instead, let's just hear it as an argument (this is blasphemous for ME to say when doing an Inference question, but it's the easiest avenue to having an intuitive understanding of what's going on in this problem).

The dude is convinced that the economy is doing badly.

If we were writing the argument core, we know we'd have
-----> the economy is doing badly

Why is he so pessimistic?

Because real estate AND car sales are strugglin'!

His argument core is essentially
Real estate + Car Sales Struggling --> Economy is probably doing badly

A phrase like "Of course" is like "Granted / naturally / while it is true that" ... these phrases are used when authors want to briefly acknowledge something that goes against them or make a little disclaimer before resuming to their main point.

So he's saying, "naturally, bad real estate by ITSELF or bad car sales BY ITSELF wouldn't be enough to make me so pessimistic."

"But when they're BOTH happening at the same time, you know something's up."

So if you wanted to think of it conditionally, it would resemble:
WHEN real estate AND car sales are struggling, THEN the econ. is probably bad.

The contrapositive of
A and B --> C
is
~C --> ~A or ~B

In this case,
If the economy weren't doing bad, then either real estate, car sales, (or both) would be doing alright.

==== wrong answer choices ====

(A) No, neither one BY ITSELF makes him pessimistic about the economy.

(B) This is going backwards. He thinks that bad real estate + bad car sales is enough to suggest bad economy. But bad economy could be suggested by other factors, such as high interest rates or ecological disasters.

(C) Since he didn't think the status of real estate OR car sales BY ITSELF was enough to be pessimistic about the economy, we have no grounds to think that the health of the real estate market BY ITSELF is enough for him to become optimistic about the economy.

(E) This is an amped up version of what (B) said. The same objection applies. His argument is that bad real estate + bad car sales is a pretty clear sign of a bad economy. That doesn't mean that he thinks that a bad economy is always a clear sign of bad real estate and bad car sales.

I think "watching televised golf" is a pretty clear sign of a bad time.
That doesn't mean that I think anyone who's having a bad time must be watching televised golf.

(D), the correct answer, sounds like our contrapositive.

If someone thinks that "knowing you're a Senator tell me that you're probably rich", that person would also believe that "knowing you're poor tells me that you're probably not a Senator."

Incidentally,
'inconsistent' = contradictory
'consistent' = non-contradictory

It is consistent to believe that "all mustard is yellow" and that "Nebraska is a land-locked state."

It is inconsistent to believe that "all mustard is yellow" and that "all mustard is blue".

[olaizola.mariana]

Thank you, this explanation helps a lot. So, the fourth sentence is basically there to throw us off, and when we see "consistent with" we should be wary of making conditional assumptions?

[tommywallach]

I doubt you'll see that language again, so I wouldn't worry about associating the language "consistent with" with any particular rule, per se, but simply follow the logic of the context. I'm always nervous about making big rules about how a given phrase should be interpreted, because context can change so much.

[hanhansummer]

(C) Since he didn't think the status of real estate OR car sales BY ITSELF was enough to be pessimistic about the economy, we have no grounds to think that the health of the real estate market BY ITSELF is enough for him to become optimistic about the economy.

Thanks, Patrick!

One additional puzzle about C. The choice write "if the real estate market is healthy, then it is likely that the economy as a whole is healthy." Is the condition "the real estate market is healthy" a sufficient one for the healthy overall economy? It only says "likely", after all...

[JingL911]

His argument core is essentially
Real estate + Car Sales Struggling --> Economy is probably doing badly

Thank you for the instruction! But the Strategy Guide suggests that I should not focus on the argument core when processing inference questions. Also, I don't know why the sentence of the stimulus that "had either one...., this would...." can't be understand in real conditional logic form. Could you please explain further? Thank you!:)

[ohthatpatrick]

Agreed. I do not approach Inference questions as though I'm reading an argument.

They specifically label these paragraphs "statements / information / passage" instead of "argument/reasoning".

What I said was
Instead, let's just hear it as an argument (this is blasphemous for ME to say when doing an Inference question, but it's the easiest avenue to having an intuitive understanding of what's going on in this problem).

"Blasphemous" = goes against the usual orthodoxy

I was only using the argument structure because we were 20 comments deep in student confusion, so I wanted to offer a conversational explanation since students were struggling with technical ones.

The 4th sentence would be weird to interpret as conditional logic since there's no certainty.

"Had either phenomenon failed to occur" certainly sounds like a conditional trigger, but the 2nd half of the sentence doesn't deliver any CERTAIN consequence.

If we say
"Had either phenomenon failed to occur, this would ensure that the economy was healthy"
then it's conditional:
~RE Slump or ~Lowest Car Sales --> Healthy Economy

But since it says
"Had either phenomenon failed to occur, it is possible that the economy is healthy"
then it's not conditional.

If you really wanted to, you could make any sentence conditional. If we say, "If Dave comes to the party, it's possible he'll start a drum circle."

You COULD symbolize that as
Dave comes --> possible he'll start a drum circle

But that's a perversion of what conditional logic is used for. We don't use it to say confusing things like "I'm certain something might happen".

Hope this helps.

[JingL911]

Hope this helps.

Really helpful. Thank you!