Q4 - Economist: Unemployment will soon decrease.

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Sufficient Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
The economist concludes that unemployment will decrease. Why? Because if the government spends more, unemployment will decrease; and if the government spends less, unemployment will decrease.

Answer Anticipation:
But what if government spending stays the same? That situation falls in the cracks of our conditional statements. To justify the conclusion, we need to know that if government spending stays the same, unemployment will decrease.

Correct Answer:
(A)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) You are correct, sir! Not what we anticipated, but this answer works just as well. By ruling out the possibility that government spending will stay the same, this answer forces one of the two conditionals in the stimulus to apply, both of which lead to unemployment decreasing.

(B) Out of scope. To be frank, their intentions don't mean squat. No matter how well-intentioned a policy is, it may not achieve it's goal.

(C) Out of scope. The economist bases her argument on government spending, so demand for workers is out of scope. Demand also doesn't necessarily translate into decreased employment - maybe the workers in demand are specialized ones, and the vast majority of workers don't have that specialization.

(D) Out of scope. A slow economy doesn't directly speak to unemployment (well, maybe it does, but you'd need an Econ degree to know for sure). Maybe the slow economy features full employment but lower overall productivity.

(E) Illegal negation. The argument tries to conclude that unemployment will decrease, so conditions that would bring about no change aren't relevant here (and are an illegal negation).

Takeaway/Pattern: When multiple conditionals feature similar sufficient conditions, and the argument is treating them as comprehensive (i.e., they cover every possible situation), it's usually the case that not all of the possibilities are covered. The correct answer will either force you into the possibilities explore, or it will rule out the possibilities not discussed. For a tricky example, see June 2007, Section 2, Question 23.

#officialexplanation