Logical Reasoning

PT101 · S2 · Q10 Economist: The economy seems to

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Economist: The economy seems to be heading out of recession.

Conclusion (seems to be)

The economy seems to be heading out of recession.

Intermediate Conclusion (indicating that)

Consumers expect economic growth in the near future.

Evidence

Consumers are buying more durable goods than before.

Evaluate

It's a little tricky to figure out the intended argument relationships, unless we know our keywords or unless we know how Role and Main Conclusion typically work.

Most arguments on Role and Main Conclusion give us the main conclusion earlier that its support. These are the two main forms:

1. Conclusion. 1. Attribution (some say) 2. After all, support. 2. (however) Conclusion. 3. After all, support.

This argument has the structure on the left, only it has three claims. Claim 1. (Conclusion) After all, Claim 2 (Premise) and thus Claim 3 (Intermediate Conclusion).

What keywords would assist us in decoding this structure?

Seems to be = opinion Recent figures = fact indicating that = inference drawn from previous claim

When it comes to the 2nd sentence, we know that the second half (prefaced by indicating that) is being supported by the first half (prefaced by recent figures show).

If we're doing Role or Main Conclusion and the first sentence sounds like the Author's Opinion, then 99% of the time that claim will be the main conclusion. Try to hear the rest of the paragraph as though it's meant to be bundled together to collectively support that first claim.

Goal

They're asking us about claim 2, which was definitely Support.

If we want to get more nuanced, we can say that it directly supports claim 3 (an intermediate conclusion) and indirectly supports claim 1 (the main conclusion.

10.

That consumers are buying more durable goods than before figures in the economist's argument in which one of the following ways?

  1. It is the phenomenon that

    Weak Match

    The fact that consumers are buying more durable goods than before is something that could be construed as a phenomenon. Why are they buying more durable goods than before? The author's explanation for that would probably be that "they're buying more durable goods because they expect economic growth in the near future". But when an answer is saying "the argument seeks to explain this phenomenon" we would think that the Main Conclusion will be the explanation. However, in this paragraph, the explanation for this phenomenon is the final claim, which is an intermediate conclusion. The author is interpreting the uptick in the purchase of durable goods to mean that people expect economic growth in the near future, which he then takes to mean that we are headed out of a recession. The author's purpose in writing this argument isn't to explain a phenomenon that happened; it's to support a prediction of what is happening / about to happen.

    3% picked this

  2. Its truth is required in

    Too Strong: required

    In order for an economy to be seemingly heading out of recession, does it need to be true that consumers are buying more durable goods than before? It doesn't seem like that's a necessary indicator, just an indicator. Maybe it would be enough to know that jobs are being added to the economy every month or new home constructions are surfing.

    3% picked this

  3. It is an inference drawn

    Wrong Roles

    The 2nd claim is not an inference; it's data. It's what recent figures show. The 3rd claim is an inference drawn from the 2nd claim. And "the recession seems to be ending" is the main conclusion, not a premise.

    4% picked this

  4. It is an inference drawn

    Switched Roles

    The 2nd claim is not an inference; it's data. It's what recent figures show. The 3rd claim is an inference drawn from the 2nd claim. If we see this, Recent figures show that X, indicating that Y it means that X is a premise, and Y in an inference drawn from that premise.

    6% picked this

  5. Correct

    It is the primary evidence

    Why this is right

    This correctly identifies the 2nd claim as support (i.e. evidence). It is definitely a little weird to call it "primary" evidence. That's not a term that's shown up on other Role questions to distinguish one supporting idea from another. It is the most foundational piece of evidence, so that must be what they mean by "primary". We start with recent figures and see that consumers are buying more durable goods than before. From that we infer that consumers must be expecting economic growth, and from that we infer that the economy seems to be heading out of recession.

    Skill tested: Role · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    84% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free