Q16 - Critic to economist: In yet another

[chungyesol]

Hello!

I keep looking at this question because I do not understand at all why (A) is the answer.. I think critic's argument is flawed because it assumes that economic growth got stronger this year not due to economic policy changes made. Economist responds to the critic that the economist's prediction led country's leaders to change economic policies which prevented a recession. I picked (C) because the critic's statements do not seem consistent as described above. What is the answer choice (A) trying to say here? Why is (A) the right answer? Please help. Thanks!

[giladedelman]

So, the economist predicted that IF economic policies were not changed, the country would go into a recession. The critic is making fun of him because the country did not go into a recession.

But wait a minute--the economist was only saying this would happen if policies weren't changed. Wouldn't it be helpful to know whether the government changed the policies before we decide whether his prediction was correct?

That's basically what the economist's response is getting at. He's saying, "Listen fool, the policies were changed, so it makes sense that there was no recession. I was only saying that would happen if things stayed the same."

And answer (A) describes this nicely. The economist's prediction was about what would happen if a certain state of affairs -- namely, the policies staying the same -- took place. But that state of affairs did not take place (or "obtain"), which is why the predicted results didn't happen.

(B) is out because it's not a question of waiting for the prediction to come true; the policies were changed, so it's not even relevant.

(C) is incorrect because the economist is not saying the critic's statements are inconsistent with each other. He's just saying they're wrong.

(D) is out because, no counterexample.

(E) is out because there's no competing factual evidence.

Does that answer your question?

[samuelfbaron]

Is it possible to place the facts into conditional statements?

I thought Critic was mistaking sufficient and necessary conditions here.... I think I'm wrong though.

[ttunden]

okay so we have the critic says the economist prediction was false. prediction was: econ policy NOT changed --> Recession.

Critic says policy not changed, but no recession, economic growth stronger

Economist says nothing bumbling, econ policy WAS changed, that's why there is no recession.

C D and E we can easily eliminate. Economist does not show that claims are mutually inconsistent, does not offer a counter example to general claim, and doesn't refute a premise.

B - yea the economist is not doing this, or utilizing this answer choice. The economist is just showing that the prediction is true. The economist is not distinguishing between predictions, he doesn't even mention two predictions or even state a prediction that is incorrect. Economist never says anything is incorrect nor not yet turned out to be correct. He is just defending his prediction and saying it is true.

A- this looks good. Says no recession because policys were changed. 2nd sentence of economist paragraph.

[jsdulberg]

Based on the explanations above I can understand why (A) is correct, but am a little annoyed by (E) and hope someone can give me some insight.

Isn't the Economist in response to the Critic directly contradicting the fact that economic policies changed?

My understanding is the critic implicitly states that economic policies were not changed, while the Economist states the leaders changed economic policies, thus disputing the Critic's factual premises.

Looking back now I can see why (A) is a better answer.

[esthertan0310]

Just a grammatical question.

I'm confuse why the LSAT author used the phrase "...the economist's prediction was conditioned did not obtain", Why "did not"? Why not "was not":

"indicating that the state of affairs on which the economist's prediction was conditioned was not obtained"?

What kind of grammar is used by the phrase "did not obtain"?
Is this option really grammatically correct? (Some of my friends, English native speakers, whose major is English and professionally work with the language, including my editor, said no. I've been working with them for years and I trust their credentials/competence.)
Is there any references for this particular grammatical point?

[tommywallach]

Esther,

The secondary definition of "obtain" is "prevail." You seem to be using the primary definition, as in "acquire," but that isn't the meaning here.

-t

[hannahhodge]

I avoided answer (A) just because I didn't understand the usage of the word "obtain."

Quite annoying.

[tommywallach]

Super annoying. (Though in their defense, you can SORTA get it by context, at least the the extent that the definition we all know and love wouldn't make any sense here, so we know it has to have some other meaning). Rough one, though.

-t

[bestning]

Sorry, I still cannot figure out why not E. The critic's factual premise is "policies were not changed," and the economist offered evidence against it. Is it incorrect because of plurality thing, like "one of the premises?" Still confusing

[RanW386]

Sorry, I still cannot figure out why not E. The critic's factual premise is "policies were not changed," and the economist offered evidence against it. Is it incorrect because of plurality thing, like "one of the premises?" Still confusing

"policies not changed" is not the critic's premise, he just quotes the economist's prediction. The only premise in the critic's argument is "growth is stronger this year".